RAO SOMASHEKARA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.

                    RAO SOMASHEKARA AND ORS.                                      A
                                       v.
                  STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.

                           SEPTEMBER 16, 1997

     [SUJATA V. MANOHARAND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.]                                B


       Service Law : "

      Karnataka Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1970-Pay scale
Disparity in Secondary School Teachers serving in erstwhile State of C
Hyderabad-Allotted to the State of Karnataka as on 1.1.1956-Justice
Tukol report-Disparity in pay scale eliminated w.ej 1.1.1970-Claim for
the period 1.1.1957 to 31.12.1969 not granted-Held, fixing cut off date as
1.1.1970 is not discriminatory nor arbitrary-State Reorganisation Act, 19561
Constitution of India, 1950 Article 14.                                      D

      Constitution of India, 1950-Article 32 Petition filed in 1991-Claim
for the period 1.1.1957 to 31.12.1969-Laches-Applicability of

      The Petitioners were Secondary School teachers in the State of
Karnataka. Before reorganisation certain secondary grade teachers were in         E
the former State of Hyderabad. After reorganisation, the corresponding posts
in former State of Mysore were equated with the posts of allotted personnel.
There was disparity in the pay scales of secondary school teachers, which
was allowed to continue for nearly 14 years. Karnataka Civil Service (Revised
Pay) Rules, 1970 based on the report of Justice Tukol came into force on          F
1.1.1970 by which the scale of secondary teachers were brought on par with
scales of allotted Hyderabad Officers prospectively w.e.f. 1.1.1970. The pay
scale disparity for the period from 1.1.1957 to 31.12.1969 continued. The
non-allottee primary school teachers approached the High Court for equating
their pay scale.
                                                                                  G
       By a compromise arrived at, the scales were increased by 50%
prospectively w.e.f. 1.1.1978. Thereafter, Govt. orders dt. 10.8.1979 were
issued extending increased scales of pay to all primary school teachers. Some
of the Secondary School teachers filed application before the Tribunal claiming
equivalent pay scale for the period 1.1.1957 to 31.12.1969 but the same was       H
                                      125
                                                                                        .
                                                                                        •
     126                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A rejected on the ground oflaches. The present petition was filed under Article ·
    32 by other secondary grade teachers.

          The contention of the petitioner was that all pay scale grievances of
    primary school teachers of almost all discriptions arising out of States
    Reorganisation Act have been favourably removed by the State Govt but the
B   grievances of secondary school teachers have not been redressed and this
    was discriminatory. It was further contended that the fixation of 31.12.1969
    as the date from which the equality will be maintained was not based on any
    rational criteria.


c cannotThebe contention of the respondent was that the case of primary teachers
              relied upon to raise a plea of discrimination, even if the grievances     '
                                                                                        t
    arise out of the States Reorganisation, The State has various options while
                                                                                            f)
    clearing grievances and if it opts for a particular formula or fixes a particular
    date upto which alone the pay scales can be revised, it was not permissible for
    the Court of Judicial review to interfere with such a choice. It was also
D   contended that the finances of the State do not permit grant of this benefit to
    the secondary school teachers.

           Dismissing the writ petition, this Court

           HELD: 1.1. The cut off date of 1.1.1970 fixed after the report of justice
E Tukol Commission in regard to secondary school teachers, is not arbitra.ry
    nor violative of Article 14 of the Constitution oflndia, 1950. [132-D]

        1.2. The State Govt had before it the report of the Commission and on
  that basis it took a decision that the disparity should stand eliminated
  prospectively from 1.1.1970 and not retrospectively from 1.1.1957. The
F question as to whether the date from which the scales ought to have been
  equated should be 1.1.1970 or an anterior or a later date was a matter whi,:h
  had to be arrived at by taking all factors into account. It will be difficult for
  this Court to decide as to from which date the continuance of the existing
  scales should be treated as discriminatory or the continuance would loose its
G temporary character arising out of section 119 of the State Reorganisation
  Act. (131-H; 132-A)

        2. Merely because the grievances of non-allotted primary teachers were
  remedied even after considerable lapse of time, it cannot be said that the
  grievances of secondary school teachers-even if it was later should have also
H been redressed for the period 1.1.1957 to 31.12.1969. The State ofKarnataka               ~
      RAO SOMASHEKARA. v. STATE [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.]                      127
might have felt that the grievance of the non-allotted primary school teachers      A
whose salaries were lesser than salaries of non-allotted secondary school
teachers was a matter of graver concern requiring redressal even as later as
1979 or 1986. [132-B-C)

       3. The principle of !aches applies equally to applications under Article
32 of the Constitution of India. The present writ petitions are filed in the year   B
1991 claiming equalisation of pay scales form 1.1.1957 to 31.12.1969 and
payment of arrears for that period. [132-D; 129-E)

      Rabindra Nath v. Union of India, [1970) 2 SCR 697, relied on.
      Motor General Traders v. State of A.P., [1984) 1 SCC 222; State of C
Madhya Pradesh v. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd., [1964) 6 SCR 846 and H.H.
Shri Swamiji of Shri Admar Mutt. Etc. v. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious
and Charitable Endowments Department & Ors., [1980) l SCR 368, referred
to.               .

      CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 704of1991.                 D
      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).

                                        WITH

      Writ Petition Nos. 827/90, 822, 416 & 781/91.

     P.R. Ramasesh, S.R. Bhat, Naveen R. Nath, Mrs. Kiran Bhardwaj, S.K.            E
Kulkarni, Surya Kant and M. Veerappa for the appearing parties.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J. These five writ petitions filed under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India are all connected and raise the same        F
questions. The petitioners are secondary school Teachers in tqe State of
Karnataka serving in Government and Government aided Secondary Schools.
      Certain Secondary grade teachers in the former State of Hyderabad
which were allotted to the State of Karnataka as on 1.11.1956. After
reorganisation, the corresponding posts in former State of Mysore were              G
equated with the posts of the allotted personnel. There was revision of pay
scales on 1.1.1957 and again on 1.1.1961 but the disparity in pay scales was
allowed to continue. This anomaly was continued till 1.1.1970 for nearly
fourteen years, when for the first time under the concerned Kamataka Civil
Services (Revised Pay Rules), 1970 which came into force on 1.1. i 970 based
on the report of the Pay Commission headed by Justice Tukol, the scales were        H
    128                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A brought on par with scales of allotted Hyderabad officers prospectively by
    enhancing the scales of the all Karnataka teachers w .e.f. 1.1.1970. But the
    grievance of the Secondary School teachers of Government of Karnataka for
    the period from 1.1.1957 to 31.12.1969 continued and has not been removed.
    That is the subject of these writ petitions

B         It is stated that so far as disparities in pay among Mysore and Kamataka
    Primary school teachers on the one hand and allotted Hyderabed primary
    school teachers are concerned, Government orders as late as 1986 showed
    that those grievances also arise out of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956
    in respect of pay scale disparities and have been removed by the Government
C   of Karnataka. On that basis, petitioners, Secondary school teachers of Mysore
    and Karnataka claim that distance of time is no bar to relieve their legitimate
    grievance for the period 1.1.57 to 3 i .12.69.

          In support of this contention, reliance is placed on two sets of facts.

D           Firstly the non-allottee primary school teachers of Karnataka filed Writ
    Petition No. 2801 of 1971 in the Karnataka High Court for equating their pay
    scale with the Hyderabad area primary school teachers. The High Court
    dismissed the said writ petition on 10.1.1975 on the ground of !aches after
    however holding that the denial of equal pay was discriminatory. In SLP No.
E   908 of 1975 preferred by the Writ petitioners therein to this Court in Sri
    Raghuram Hegde & others v. State of Mysore, a compromise was arrived at
    with prospective effect from I .1.1978 stating that 50% of the difference between
    the pay scales will be given. The pay as on 1.1.1978 of the Karnataka Primary
    School teachers was to be increased by 50% prospectively w.e.f. 1.1.78. The
    scales were increased only for purpose of computation and fixation of pay but
F   not for payment of arrears upto 31.12.77. Various details as contained in the
    compromise so arrived at were incorporated in the proceedings of the
    Government of Karnataka dated 10.8.1979. Again, when the above compromise
    was being implemented, the Government stopped the benefit of this
    compromise from accruing to primary school teachers recruited in the State
G   of Kamataka after 1.11.56. This was challenged successfully in B. r Ramaswamy
    v. State of Karnataka, (W.P. 54/82 and batch) before the High Court of
    Karnataka by judgment dated 6.12.1985. Thereafter Government issued an
    order as .late as late as 8.7.1986, extending the benefit of its order dated
     I 0.8.1979 by giving increased scales of pay to all primary school teachers i.e.
    not only to those of erstwhile Mysore State but also to the primary teachers
H   recruited after 1.11.1956. This was restricted to primary teachers who were
       RAO SOMASHEKARA. v. STATE [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.]                    129
recruited upto 31.12.1969. The Government directed the payment of the higher       A
pay scale as per their earlier order dated I 0.8.1979 and arrears for the period
 1.1.78 to 31.3.1986 were to be credited to the General Provident Fund Account
and the difference payable after 1.1.1986 to the primary school teachers was
to be paid in cash. Thus as late as 8. 7.86 the State of Karnataka removed
grievances of primary teachers in regard to pay etc. as compared to earstwhile     B
Hyderabad primary teachers allotted to Karnataka.

      SeconrAy, the Karnataka High Court by judgment dated 7.9.1975 extended
the benefits of the Government order dated I 0.8. 79 to primary school teachers
in grant-in-aid schemes. This was not interfered with by this Court in State
ofKarnataka v. A. Venkatappayya, (CA No. 13757/96 dated 28.10.96). In that         C
judgment this Court also referred to the dismissal of SLPs (C) 21003-113 etc.
of 1993 dated 22.8.94 whereby this Court refused to interfere with the order
of the State Administrative Tribunal extending the benefits of the order dated
10.8.79 to the primary school teachers under the local authorities ofKamataka.

      In view of the above said two positive developments in favour of             D
primary school teachers, the Secondary school teachers approached the
Kamataka Administrative Tribunal in OA 2205 and 2206 of 1987 contending
that they should get pay scale equalisation for the period from 1.1.1957 to
31.12.1969 also. The Tribunal rejected the petition on the ground of !aches on
14.12.1989. Thereafter, the present writ petitions have been filed by other        E
Karnataka Secondary Grade Teacher in this Coutt claiming equalisation of pay
scales from 1.1.1957 to 31.12.1969 and payment of arrears for that period. That
is how these writ petitions have arisen.

       It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners Secondary
school teachers that as late as 1986 and now 1994 and 1996 all pay-scale           F
grievance of primary school teachers of almost all descriptions arising out of
States Reorganisation Act, have been favourably removed by the State
government, but the grievances of the Secondary School teachers, also arising
out of State Reorganisation for the period 1.1.1957 to 31.12.1969 have not
been redressed and this is discriminatory. It is pointed out that this was done    G
by even directing the arrears to be credited to their P.F. account and extending
all benefits to primary teachers recruited after 1.11.1956 upto 31.12.1969. The
petitioners contend that the fixation of 31.12.1969 as the date from which the
equality will be maintained is not based on any rational criteria having nexus
with the anomalies arising out of the State Reorganisation Act. Learned
counsel for some of the petitioners Mr. S.R. Bhat argued that in regard to the     H
    130                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A   period for 1.1.57 to 31.12.69 the very continuance of the grievance for 14 years
    after 1.11.1956 till 1.1.1970 was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
    India. Learned counsel placed strong reliance on the judgment of this Court
    in Motor General Traders v. State ofA.P., [1984) I SCC 222 and other cases.

          On the other hand, counsel for the respondent submitted that on account
B   of State Reorganisation in 1956, differences in scales of pay between allottee
    officers and Mysore officers are bound to arise and are justified on account
    of historical reasons attributable to different geographical areas. It is also
    contended that the petitioners who are Secondary School teachers, have
    opted for Karnataka Scales after 1.11.1956 and cannot now raise these
C   contentions. It is also stated that the case of primary teachers cannot be relied
    upon to raise a plea of discrimination, even if the grievances arise out of
    States Reorganisation. The State has various options while clearing grievances
    and if it opts for a particular formula or fixes a particular date upto which alone
    the pay scales can be revised, it is not permissible for the Court of judicial
    review to interfere with such a choice. The finances of the State do not permit
D   grant of this benefit to the secondary school teachers.

           This Court had occasion to go into the question of the temporary
    nature of the continuance of existing laws under Section 119 of the States
    Reorganisation Act, 1956 and whether delays in rectifying the inequalities
    arising out of the said Act should be rectified by the State within any
E   particular time frame. Jn State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhopal Sugar Industries
    Ltd., [I 964) 6 SCR 846 (852-854) it was observed that though continuance of
    the laws of the old region after the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 by section
    119 of that Act was not by itself discriminatory even if it resulted in differential
    treatment of persons, objects and transactions in the new State because of
p   historical reasons, still 'passage of time' could make the continuance
    discriminatory. It was observed in the above case that :

             "bv the passage of the time, considerations of necessity and
            expedience would be obliterated, and the grounds which justified
            classification of geographical regions for historical reasons may cease
G           to be valid. A purely temporary provision which because of compelling
            forces justified differential treatment when the Reorganisation Act
            was enacted cannot obviously be permitted to assume permanency,
            so as to perpetuate that treatment without a rational basis to support
            it after the initial expediency and necessity have disappeared."

H   While accepting that continuance of existing laws in the new State could not
      RAO SOMASHEKARA. v. STATE [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.]                    131
be continued without rational basis, this Court pointed out further as follows:   A
        "But whether the continuance of unequal laws by itself sustained the
        plea of unlawful discrimination in view of the changed circumstances
        could only be ascertained after a full and thorough enquiry into the
        continuance of the grounds on which the inequality could rationally
        be founded, and the change of circumstances, if any, which obliterated    B
        the compulsion of expedience and necessity existing at the time when
        the Reorganisation Act was enacted.' ·

Similar principles were laid down by this Court in H.H,. Shri Swamiji of Shri
Admar Mutt, Etc. v. The Commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable
Endowments Department & Others, [1980] 1 SCR 368 (387-388) wherein it was         C
observed that the "decision to withdraw the application of unequal laws to
equals cannot be delayed unreasonably because the relevance of historical
reasons .... .is bound to wear out with the passage of time". On the facts of
the case, the Court refrained from striking down the provision because the
period under consideration was just five or six years and there was no            D
adequate data available to decide the question whether the continuance of
the legislation amounted to hostile discrimination. The above rulings were
followed in Motor General Traders v. State of A.P. cited by the petitioner's
counsel.

       It is to be noticed that in these writ petitions, after 1.11.1956, the     E
disparities in the scales of pay continued till l. l .1970 and it was only from
that date that, on the basis of Justice Tukol Commission report, the scales
of the Mysore/Karnataka Secondary School teachers were brought on par
with those of the Secondary School teachers of the erstwhile Hyderabad State
allotted to the State of Kamataka. In other words, the State took about           F
fourteen years to set right the disparities. As to whether any inquiry is
necessary for deciding about hostile discrimination, the petitioners contend
that there is no dispute because the posts in the allotted areas of Hyderabad
State and of Kamataka were equated soon after 1956. Question therefore is
whether, in writ petitions filed in this Court in 1991, we are compelled to
interfere?                                                                        G
      We are of the view that the State Government had before it the report
of the Commission anp on that basis it took a decision that the disparities
should stand eliminated prospectively from 1.1.1970 and not retrospectively
from 1.1.1957. The question as to whether the date from which the scales
ought to have been equated should be 1.1.1970 or an anterior or a later date      H
    132                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A was a matter which had to be arrived at by taking all factors into account.
    It will be difficult for this Court to decide as to from what date the continuance
    of the existing scales should be treated as discriminatory or the continuance
    would loose its temporary character arising out of section 119 of the States         •
    Reorganisation Act. It may be that the State of Karnataka felt that the
B   grievance of the non-allotted· primary school teachers whose salaries were
    lesser than the salaries of non-allotted secondary school teachers was a
    matter of graver concern rt:quiring redressal even as late as 1979 or 1986.
    Merely because the grievances of non-allotted primary teachers were remedied
    even after considerable lapse of time, we cannot say that grievances of
C   secondary school teachers-even if it was late-should have also been redressed
    for the period 1.1.1957 to 3 I .12.1969. Above all, the financial burden involved
    was also a matter of relevant consideration. We are not therefore inclined to
    hold that the cut-off date of 1.1.1970 fixed after the report of Justice Tukol
    Commission, in regard to Secondary School teachers, is arbitrary or violative
D   of Article 14. In any event, principle of !aches applies equally to applications
    under Article 32 of the Constitution of India Rabindra Nath v. Union ofIndia,
    [1970] 2 SCR 697.

          For the aforesaid reasons, these writ petitions are dismissed.

E S.V.K.I..                                                   · Petitions dismissed.




                                                                                         '