B.C Nagraj vs. State of Karnataka,2023

Advertisements

Introduction:

“B.C Nagraj vs. State of Karnataka,2023” is a notable legal case that took place in the Indian judicial system. The case involves B.C Nagraj & Anr. as the appellant, State of Karnataka as the respondent. The case is related to legal disputes or matters involving the B.C. Nagaraj & Anr. and State of Karnataka. The year 2023 signifies the year in which the case was heard or decided by the relevant court.

The case revolves around the denial of revised pay scale benefits to two appellants, B.C. Nagaraj and another individual. Both appellants had been employed as Physical Instructors in Government Grade Colleges in Karnataka and had reached the selection grade pay scale of the University Grants Commission (UGC) at various points in their careers. A government order issued on 15th November 1999 revised the pay scale for certain categories of employees in government colleges, including Teachers, Librarians, and Physical Education Directors. The order granted them the benefit of the revised UGC pay scales from 1st January 1996 with retrospective effect from 1st January 1996.

Facts of the Case:

The appellants were denied the benefit of the Government Order dated 15th November 1999, specifically relating to physical education personnel drawing UGC pay scales of 1996. They filed an application before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, which was rejected. Subsequently, they filed a Writ Petition before the High Court to challenge the Tribunal’s order, which was also dismissed. The impugned judgment, which is the subject of this case, relied upon a Government Order dated 4th July 2008. This order stated that the revised UGC pay scale would be extended from 27th July 1998 notionally, and all financial benefits would be extended prospectively from 4th July 2008, with no arrears to be paid.

Issues Raised:

The primary issue in the case was whether the appellants were entitled to the benefits of the Government Order dated 15th November 1999, which granted them the revised UGC pay scales with retrospective effect from 1st January 1996, or if the Government Order dated 4th July 2008 should be upheld, denying them arrears and retrospective benefits.

Appellant Contention:

1. The appellants argued that similarly situated employees had received the benefit of the Government Order dated 15 November 1999 and that they should not be denied the same relief. 

2. They also pointed out that even as of 7th January 2014, the same benefit had been granted to employees similarly placed as them. 

3. They asserted that the State Government should extend the benefits to them as well.

Respondent Contention:

1. The State of Karnataka argued that the orders passed in favor of similarly situated employees, such as Shri N. Ramesh, were based on a misunderstanding and the lack of awareness regarding the Government Order dated 4th July 2008. 

2. They claimed that the order dated 4th July 2008, which incorporated UGC’s clarification issued on 19th October 2006, should be upheld, denying arrears and retroactive benefits.

Judgment:

The Court found that the appellants were entitled to the benefits under the Government Order dated 15th November 1999. They emphasized that the State Government had granted benefits to other similarly situated employees and had accepted the judgment in the case of Shri N. Ramesh. Thus, the Court quashed the impugned judgment and directed the State Government to extend the benefits to the appellants within three months from the date of the judgment. The appeals were allowed with no order as to costs.

Conclusion:

The Court ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that they were entitled to the benefits of the Government Order dated 15th November 1999, and directed the State Government to provide them with the benefits within a specified timeframe. The judgment was also clarified to apply to other pending cases of similarly situated employees making similar claims. However, the ruling would not be used to reopen concluded cases.

References

1. Indiankanoon.org/doc/158169282/
2. https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=16791#:~:text=He%20submitted%20that%20the%20order,financial%20benef
3. https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/case?caseId=011202385000&title=nagraj-vs-state-of-karnataka

This Article is written by Jaishree Sharma student at Rajasthan University, Jaipur; and an Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Admin