9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 1363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owever, on an intra-court appeal by the aggrieved employees/association of employees, the Division Bench of the High Court reversed the order of the learned Single Judge and set aside the impugned orders of the Government, thereby allowing the Writ Petitions. It is against this judgment of the Division Bench, these appeals are preferred by the State of Karnataka. 2. The campus of the Mangalore University which was established in the year 1890 is situated at a place called 'Konaje' which is at a distance of about 5 Kms. from the boundary of the Mangalore City Corporation. The payment of allowances-HRA and CCA to the teaching and non-teaching staff of University is regulated by the various Government orders issued from time to time. The State Government makes the fund available to the University for meeting the expenditure towards pay and allowances of the employees. It appears that on account of inadequate housing facilities in the campus, the Government by a G.O. dated 30.11.1984 allowed the HRA and CCA to be paid to the employees residing within the City Corporation area on par with the employees working within the limits of the Corporation. Sanction for such payment was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icable to the 'C' category city/town. It may also be mentioned at this juncture that the Vice- Chancellor of the University by his communication dated 5.3.1997 addressed to the Chief Secretary requested the Government to waive the excess payment upto 31.3.1997 and continue to pay the HRA at the same rate. It indicates that notwithstanding the G.O. dated 13.2.1996, status quo in regard to the payment of the allowances continued upto 31.3.1997 and that was the position till the date of filing of the Writ Petition in the year 1997. 4. The learned singe Jude of the High Court held that the action of the State Government in withdrawing the concession extended to the University employees on a re-examination of the matter did not suffer from any legal infirmity. The learned Judge negatived the contention that the Government should have treated the University employees of Mangalore on par with the Government employees posted at a place within 8 Kms. from the periphery of Bangalore City Corporation limits. The learned Judge observed that such comparison was misconceived. Further, the learned Judge took the view that The Notification issued on 28.11.1996 under the Karnataka Urban an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o six groups as shown below with reference to their population according to 1981 census:- population of city/other places classification (i) 16 lakhs and above 'A' (ii) 8 lakhs and above but not exceeding 16 lakhs 'B1' (iii) 4 lakhs and above but not exceeding 8 lakhs 'B2' (iv) 50,000 and and above but not exceeding 4 lakhs 'C' (v) 25,000 and above not exceeding 50,000 'D' (vi) other places 'E' 2.4 Details of the places under each of the six groups mentioned above and the areas which form part of the City urban agglomerations are given in annexures I and II respectively. 2.5 Government servants shall be entitled to HRA & CCA with reference to their basic pay at the rates shown below:- Tabular statement omitted (According to the table the HRA/CCA is fixed with reference to the basic pay and the class of city or other place). Para 2.6 on which the respondents - writ petitioners placed much reliance is as follows:- The orders issued in G.O. No. FD 4 SRP 80 22nd March 1980 regarding admissibility of HRA & CCA for the employees who are posted to any place which is situated within a distance of eight kilometers from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r is provided by the very GO in Annexure II. Para 2.4 makes it explicit that the areas which from part of the city urban agglomeration are given in Annexure H. As per item VI of Annexure II, Mangalore Urban Agglomeration consists of (a) Apple (b) Derebail (i) Derebail, (ii) Bangrakalur; (c) Kankandai; (d) Kavuru; (e) Kotekare; (f) Mangalore (i) Mangalore (ii) Kadri (iii) Maroli. It appears that the place which are included in Mangalore Urban Agglomeration are either situate in Corporation limit; or within the close proximity to the Corporation area. Konaje as already mentioned, is at a distance of 5 kms. from the Corporation limits and it is not included in Mangalore Urban Agglomeration. The G.O. dated 4.5.1990 governs the drawal of HRA and CCA during the relevant period. It is brought to our notice that on August 10,1999, a fresh G.O. was issued revising the rates of HRA and CCA based on 1991 census. Annexure I almost remains the same. In Annexure II, under the head 'Mangalore Urban Agglomeration' we find some changes and inclusion of three more localities. Even here, Konaje stands omitted. As rightly held by the learned Singe Judge, when there is definite identification o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... galore University will only be entitled to draw the said allowances at the meagre rate applicable to 'E' class station because the place where Mangalore University is located comes under 'E' class. To repeat, Konaje is not included in Mangalore Urban Agglomeration. The grievance of the respondents, therefore, arises on account of that. However, the respondents have not assailed the G.O. dated 4.5.1990 on the ground that non-inclusion of Konaje in Mangalore Urban Agglomeration ('C' class) is an instance of inequality arising from lack of proper classification or that there is an element of arbitrariness in specifying the places comprised in Mangalore Urban Agglomeration. The limited challenge to the G.O. of 1990 which received approval of the Division Bench of the High Court was on the ground that there was a discrimination as between the employees working in peripheral area of Mangalore City Corporation and Bangalore City Corporation. In other words, the respondent-writ petitioners have built up their plea of violation of Article 14 by taking the limited ground that the same benefit as was conferred by para 2.6 on the employees posted to work in any place si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o certain individuals or a small section of people. That is not to say that the Government should not take note of individual cases of hardship and afford relief wherever such relief is genuinely needed; but, the rule or the provision does not become bad or obnoxious to Article 14 for the reason that the criterion adopted in the case of 'A' class city is not extended to 'B' or 'C' class city. If, as stated, by the learned senior counsel for respondents, some of the members of University staff are compelled to reside outside the Campus by reason of non-availability of residential quarters, the Respondents have a genuine grievance and on the University authorities or Respondent-Association approaching the Government. We have no reason to think that the Government will not give earnest consideration to the problem. 11. The only other question to be considered is whether the Government Orders impugned in the Writ Petitions are liable to be quashed on account of infraction of principles of natural justice. It is true, in a case of this nature where the payment already made is sought to be recovered, thereby visiting the employees with adverse monetary consequenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
