BASWARAJ AMBARAO ALUJI Vs. COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are before this Court praying that the order dated 6.6.2006 passed by the first respondent which is impugned at Annexure-G to the petition be quashed and all the consequential benefits be granted to them.

(2.) THE brief facts on which the petitioners have approached this Court is that the petitioners are all employees of the first respondent Command Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the CADA) who were drawing the pay scale applicable to the post of Agricultural Assistants from the year 31.3.1998. By the impugned order, the said benefit has been removed in the guise of downgrading them to group 'D' and calling them as CADA Assistants.

(3.) SRI P.S. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would contend that the action of the CADA in issuing the impugned order dated 6.6.2006 cannot be sustained since the said order refers to the purported directions by Government which are indicated at Sl.No.3 in the reference portion of the order. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the Karnataka Command Areas Development Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and the rules framed thereunder would not empower the Government to do so. Firstly, under the Act, the only power which is available to the State Government is under Section 48 and such power can be exercised only with regard to policy matters. With regard to regulation of the service conditions of the employees of the CADA, under the rules, more particularly vide Rule 5 which is applicable to the instant case, it is specific with regard to scales of pay and other conditions of service. As such when the rules itself contemplates the procedure to be followed, the directions of the Government cannot nullify the said rule or such correspondence cannot be issued to overcome the same. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel has also referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the other High Courts to contend that while considering an analogous provision contained under the Electricity Act, It has been categorically held that such power is available only insofar as the policy decisions and not with regard to regulation of the service conditions. Learned Senior Counsel would also contend that the requirement contemplated under the CADA (Cadre and Recruitment) 1987 which was notified on 12.3.1996 referred to by the respondents cannot be made applicable retrospectively to the petitioners since the petitioners were regularised into service in the year 1992 though the pay scale was fixed in the year 1998 and the notification itself makes It clear that it would come into force on the date of publication.