- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42025-DB WP No. 23370 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 23370 OF 2023 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SRI B P HANUMATHA REDDY S/O LT PAPANNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT BANASHANKARI NILAYA OPP KAMALA MEDICAL CENTRE, NEAR BARAGEREAMMA TEMPLE HOLELKERE ROAD, CHITRADURGA - 577501. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M NAGARAJAN.,ADVOCATE A/W SRI. VISHWANATH BHAT M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, (PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION) EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, DR B.R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560001. Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42025-DB WP No. 23370 of 2023 2. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560009. 3. THE DIRECTOR (SECONDARY EDUCATION) O/O THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560009. 4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR - I O/O THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560009. 5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (ADMINISTRATION ) CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CHITRADURGA - 577501. 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CHITRADURGA - 577501. 7. THE VICE PRINCIPAL GOVT PRE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE HIGH SCHOOL SECTION YELAGODU CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 521. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42025-DB WP No. 23370 of 2023 8. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E ) KARNATAKA P B NO 5329/5369 ANNEX BUILDING, PARK HOUSE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.REUBEN JACOB., AAG A/W SRI. V. SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R8) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.3.2023 IN IA. No. 1372/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-C AS PRAYED THEREIN. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42025-DB WP No. 23370 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) The petitioner, who is appointed as a 'Craft Teacher Grade-I' in the year 1988 and who has successfully prosecuted different proceedings for fixation of a particular pay scale, is aggrieved by the first respondent’s Order dated 10.12.2021. The petitioner has called this Order in question with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal [for short, 'the Tribunal'] in Application No.1372/2022 unsuccessfully. 2. The first respondent’s order dated 10.12.2021 is for re-fixing the petitioner's pay scale at Rs.1,040-Rs.1,900/-. The Tribunal has refused to intercede with the aforesaid order opining that the petitioner is not prejudiced because there is no order to recover the salary paid in terms of the pay scale admitted to him vide the order dated 09.05.2006 and the impugned order is prospective. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42025-DB WP No. 23370 of 2023 3. Sri Vishwanath Bhat M and Sri M Nagarajan, the learned counsels for the petitioner, while reiterating that the impugned order is without due notice and that there are financial implications to the petitioner with the petitioner's retiral benefits being paid according to pay scale in terms of the order dated 10.12.2021, canvass the following: [a] the petitioner at the first instance approached this Court with the writ petition in W.P. No. 24893/1999 as was then permissible, and this petition is disposed of on 22.06.2020 directing the concerned respondent to implement certain orders and to give to the petitioner the benefit that he would be entitled to under the order dated 06.03.1999 within three months. [b] The petitioner was issued with certain order which was notwithstanding the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42025-DB WP No. 23370 of 2023 aforesaid order and therefore the petitioner filed the application in Nos. 5829/2001 and 7128/2001 with the Tribunal. The Tribunal has disposed of this Application on 28.10.2005 setting aside the impugned order directing the respondents to take action for fixation of pay. [c] In compliance with the aforesaid direction, the order dated 09.05.2006 is issued permitting the petitioner to a certain pay scale in terms of which the petitioner has drawn salary until the impugned order dated 10.12.2021. Sri Vishwanath Bhat M and Sri M Nagarajan argue that the impugned order dated 10.12.2021 is in the teeth of the Tribunal's specific directions and the order issued in compliance thereof and that the benefit could not have been denied to the petitioner - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42025-DB WP No. 23370 of 2023 especially without an opportunity to show cause against such an order. 4. Sri Reuben Jacob, the learned Additional Advocate General, submits that this Court must consider whether there should be any interference with the first respondent’s order dated 10.12.2021 or the Tribunal's order in the light of the fact that the respondents had to consider similar requests by those who claim the same pay scale though they were not appointed as Craft Teachers and certain liberty was reserved to the respondents in the application filed by those to reconsider permitting pay scale applicable to Craft Teachers Grade-I and Grade-II. However, the learned Additional Advocate General cannot dispute that the order dated 10.12.2021 visits the petitioner with financial consequences and therefore an opportunity should have been extended. 5. Sri Reuben Jacob also cannot dispute that the order dated 09.05.2006, which admitted the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42025-DB WP No. 23370 of 2023 petitioner to a revised pay scale, could not have been revisited unless the Tribunal’s previous order dated 28.10.2005 was called in question or otherwise jettisoned. This Court has also heard the learned Additional Advocate General on whether the order dated 10.12.2021 would be a misadventure because the order dated 09.05.2006 is issued in implementation of a direction that has not been called in question and there are definite financial implications to the State as the petitioner will be entitled for payment of consequential amount along with interest as would be admissible under the relevant Rules if the first respondent’s order dated 10.12.2021 is quashed. 6. This Court must refer to the material portion of the Tribunal's order dated 28.10.2005 as the consequential order dated 09.05.2006 extends the benefits of a certain pay scale to the petitioner. The Tribunal has observed thus while directing the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42025-DB WP No. 23370 of 2023 concerned respondents to take action and grant consequential benefits to the petitioner within ninety days from the date of receipt of its order: "17. After the issuance of directions by the High Court of Karnataka on 22.6.2000, the only course open to the respondents is to sincerely implement the orders of the High Court and grant the benefits to the applicant as spelt out therein. In the event the respondents are aggrieved, then the avenue open to them would be to file or to move an appeal against the said order within the stipulated time. The respondents have done neither. It is now therefore not open to the respondents to try and interpret the rules regarding fixation of pay and arrive at a conclusion which is contrary to the directions of the High Court. Thus, the stand taken by the-respondents cannot be sustained in law. 18. In these circumstances, therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the action of the respondents to take a different view- point now, cannot be legally permitted. As the issue has already been examined and decided by the High Court of Karnataka, the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42025-DB WP No. 23370 of 2023 only course open to the respondents now is to faithfully and sincerely obey the orders and implement the same." 7. Admittedly, this order is not called in question, and in fact, it is implemented by the order dated 09.05.2006 with the petitioner drawing all consequential benefits over sixteen years. The ostensible justification for the Order dated 10.12.2021 to rescind the order dated 09.05.2006 and revisit the pay scale to which the petitioner is admitted is because others were making a claim for similar treatment based on what is admitted to the petitioner. 8. The reliance is upon the proposition that the law does not envisage negative equality, and if some relief of benefit is granted inadvertently or by mistake, such decision does not confer any right in others. This Court must observe that the proposition is indisputable and it could be cited to consider the merits of the claim of others, but could not have been - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42025-DB WP No. 23370 of 2023 cited as a reason to rescind the order dated 09.05.2006 because the Tribunal's Order dated 28.10.2005 is not called in question and if the respondents proposed to call in question this order, they should have availed the remedy as against such order even after the Order dated 09.05.2006. 9. The respondents not having availed such remedy and having admitted the petitioner to the benefit of the order dated 09.05.2006 issued in implementation of the direction did not have jurisdiction to issue the order dated 10.12.2021. This Court is of the view that a decision is taken without due regard to the potential litigation occupying judicial time. The Tribunal has overlooked material circumstances in sustaining the order dated 10.12.2021. As such, there must be interference setting aside not just the Tribunal's order but also the Order dated 10.12.2021 admitting the petitioner to the consequential benefits in the light of the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42025-DB WP No. 23370 of 2023 admitted fact that the petitioner's retiral benefits have been settled in terms of the pay scale as envisaged under the Order dated 10.12.2021. 10. Further, this Court is of the view that the Principal Secretary, Department of School Education must ensure that a copy of this order is brought to the notice of the concerned officer so that this officer is made aware of the repercussions that could be when an order is made without due regard to the possibilities of protracted litigation. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER [a] The petition is allowed and the Tribunal's order dated 15.03.2023 in Application No.1372/2022 and the order dated 10.12.2021 are quashed declaring that the petitioner shall be entitled to pay/retiral benefits including the pension based on the salary drawn just prior to the order dated - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42025-DB WP No. 23370 of 2023 10.12.2021 and the petitioner shall be admitted to these benefits along with interest as is permissible under the Rules. [b] The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file a certificate copy of this order with the first respondent within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order directing the first respondent forward appropriate records to the eighth respondent for due settlement within eight [8] weeks from the date of receipt of such order. [c] The registry is directed to furnish a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Government of Karnataka, who shall, as observed by this Court, ensure that a copy of this order is made available to the Under - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42025-DB WP No. 23370 of 2023 Secretary who has signed the order dated 10.12.2021. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE AN/-