JUDGMENT : (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner. 2. The subject matter of the appeal is an order dated 07.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.58289/2016 (GM-RES) directing the payment of salary to the respondent/writ petitioner at the rate of Rs.31,000/- from 25.02.2009 to 31.07.2009 and thereafter at the rate of Rs.70,000/- per month from 01.08.2009 till September 2010. A cross objection is also on record claiming interest on the payment of the amounts directed to be paid to the respondent/writ petitioner. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant - Karnataka State Minorities Commission (for short 'Commission' ) that there could have been no direction to pay the salary at the rate applicable to a Member of the Karnataka Public Service Commission to the respondent/writ petitioner since the nature of duties and responsibilities of a Member of Karnataka State Minorities Commission was very different from that of a Member of a Karnataka Public Service Commission. It is further submitted that Rules have specifically been framed with regard to allowances due to members of the appellant - Commission by Notification dated 24.09.2010. It is submitted that as regards the payment to be made to the Members, it is specifically provided in the said Rule as under: "2. Substitution of rule 4:- In the Karnataka State Minorities Commission Rules, 2000, for rule 4 the following shall be substituted, namely:- "4. Allowances and other emoluments payable to the Members of the Commission:- Allowances and other emoluments payable to the Members of the Commission shall be as follows, namely:- (a) sitting fee of rupees one thousand per every sitting but not exceeding rupees twenty thousand per month; (b) allowances towards local conveyance, telephone, stationery and other expenses of rupees five thousand per month; (c) traveling allowance and dearness allowance at the rates admissible to Group-A (Senior Scale) Government Officers for the tours undertaken in performance of the functions enumerated in section 10 of Act; Provided that the traveling allowance and dearness allowance shall be limited to the tours not exceeding ten days per month." 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since there was a Rule notified, the payment could have been only in terms of the said Rule and the payment directed by the learned Single Judge is not proper. It is further contended that in the light of the Rules, the direction to pay the amounts payable to a Member of Karnataka Public Service Commission is Per incuriam. It is further submitted that it was on the basis of Annexure-F - Notification dated 03.06.1999 that the learned Single Judge had directed the payment of amounts payable to the Members of the Karnataka Public Service Commission to the respondent/writ petitioner as well. It is submitted that the said notification was only in respect of the Members of Karnataka State Commission for Backward Classes and that the Members of the Appellant Commission are not entitled to the said payment in the absence of any Rule or Notification making the same applicable to the Members of the appellant - Commission. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner, however, points out that the respondent/writ petitioner was in service from 25.02.2009 to 09.03.2010 and that he is entitled to salary and allowances for the said period. It is submitted that during the said period when the respondent/writ petitioner was working as Member of the appellant - Commission, there was no Rule notified in respect of the salary and allowances payable to Members of appellant - Commission. It is submitted that it is in the above circumstances that the amounts payable to the Members of the Karnataka State Commission for Backward Classes had been made applicable by this Court to the Members of the appellant - Commission as well. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner further submits that a cross objection has also been filed by the respondent as W.A.Crob.No.5/2025 claiming interest for the delayed payment in view of the fact that the payment had been wrongfully denied to the respondent/writ petitioner. Learned counsel would also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of The State of Andhra Pradesh and Another vs. Smt.Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari , Civil Appeal No.399/2021 decided on 08.02.2021. 7. We have considered the contentions advanced on either side. 8. We notice that the respondent/writ petitioner was admittedly working as a Member of the appellant - Commission from 25.02.2009 to 09.03.2010. 7. We have considered the contentions advanced on either side. 8. We notice that the respondent/writ petitioner was admittedly working as a Member of the appellant - Commission from 25.02.2009 to 09.03.2010. Though the removal was challenged, the writ petition as well as the writ appeal and the SLP were dismissed. Therefore, the claim of the respondent/writ petitioner for salary and emoluments would only be for the period from 25.02.2009 to 09.03.2010. The learned Single Judge considered the contentions advanced and found that Rule 3 of the Karnataka State Commission for Backward Classes, Rules, 1999, provided that Salary and allowance payable to and the terms and conditions of service of the Chairman and Members of the Commission shall be such as may be prescribed. It is not in dispute that there was no prescription of the salary and emoluments payable to Members of the Commission as on the relevant time i.e., on 09.03.2010. 9. The learned Single Judge found that in an earlier writ petition i.e., W.P.No.1116/2007, a learned Single Judge of this Court had directed the State to fix the salary payable to the petitioner therein as a Member of the Karnataka State Minorities Commission from 28.11.2001 to 23.01.2004 in a manner and analogous to the fixation of the salary done with respect of the Members of Karnataka State Commission for Backward Classes. 10. The Karnataka State Commission for Backward Classes as per Annexure-F notification was paying salary payable to the Members of the Karnataka Public Service Commission to its Members as well. It is based on the said judgment that the learned Single Judge had directed that in view of the notification dated 03.06.1999, the same amounts that are being paid to the Members of Karnataka State Commission for Backward Classes is liable to be paid to the respondent/writ petitioner as well. 11. Though the learned counsel for the appellant submits that Annexure-E - Notification has been issued and ought to have been looked into, we notice that Annexure-E had been issued only on 24.09.2010 and is apparently prospective in nature. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the contention that the direction issued is Per incuriam and without considering Annexure-E cannot be accepted. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the contention that the direction issued is Per incuriam and without considering Annexure-E cannot be accepted. We find no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge except in observing that since the respondent/writ petitioner admittedly demitted office on 09.03.2010, the amount payable would only be till such date. The writ appeals are, therefore, dismissed. 12. Insofar as W.A.Crob.No.5/2025 is concerned, having considered the contentions advanced and having perused the judgments made available, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case for grant of interest for the delayed payment. However, in view of the fact that the respondent/writ petitioner had to await the payment of amounts for considerable length of period, to compensate the respondent/writ petitioner, an amount of Rs.15,000/- is ordered as costs to be payable to the respondent/writ petitioner. With the above observations, the cross objection is disposed of. 13. Insofar as CCC No.81/2024 is concerned, the impugned order dated 07.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.58289/2016 is to be complied within two months and with the said direction, the contempt proceedings are dropped with the liberty to file fresh contempt petition, if the order is not complied within two months from today.