Karnataka High Court
Bangalore Metropolitan Transport ... vs N.V. Varadarajan on 18 December, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
WRIT APPEAL NO.1037 OF 2016 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
BANGALORE METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 027
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. N.V. VARADARAJAN
S/O LATE S.R. VENKATARAMACHAR
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT. No.987, 2ND MAIN
2ND CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 040
2. P. YOGANATHAN
S/O LATE PERIYANARAI
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT. No.3/14A, 3RD CROSS
BHARATHADAS NAGAR
HOSUR-635 109
3. M. SUBRAMANYAM
S/O LATE M. EETHARAM HATRY
-
2
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT. No.512B, 4TH MAIN
KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN
BENGALURU-560 060
4. G.S. RENUKARADHYA
S/O LATE G.S. SIDDALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT. GANAPATHI HALLI
CHUNCHANA KUNTE POST
BENGALURU SOUTH-562 130
5. A. MOHAN
S/O ANJANEYA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT. No.51, 1ST CROSS
1ST MAIN, CAUVERY LAYOUT
VIJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 040
6. V. GIRISH
S/O P. VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT. No.303, 6TH BLOCK
RAJAJINAGAR, 12TH A MAIN
DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD
BENGALURU-560 010
7. GANGAIAH
S/O LATE HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT. No.268, 13TH MAIN
13TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI,
2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 072
8. G.N. SHANKAR
S/O LATE NANJUNDASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT. No.71, KRISHNAPPA GARDEN
BEHIND LRDE C.V. RAMAN NAGAR POST
BENGALURU-560 093
-
3
9. R. RAJANNA
S/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT. No.9, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS
NETHAJI LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR
2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 040
10 . CHALAPATHY
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT. No.8/1, 1ST MAIN
1ST CROSS, NETHAJI LAYOUT
VIJAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-560 040
11 . K.M. YOGAPPA
S/O LATE MANJAPPA HEGDE
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT. No. DONUR, KIGGA POST
SHRINGERI TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 139
12 . ASADULLA QURESHI
S/O LATE ABDUL KADAR
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT. No.63, PIPE LINE
PRASHANTH NAGAR
T. DASARAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 057
13 . V. NARAYANAPPA
S/O LATE VENKATARAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT. No.75, SONAPANNA HALLI
BETTAHALASUR POST
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
14 . HANUMAPPA
S/O LATE ANJANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT. No.305, VIDYA NAGAR CROSS
BETTAHALASUR POST
-
4
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
15 . H. SAMIULLA
S/O LATE HAYATH SAB
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/A No.131/1, SUNNADAGUDU
KAMAKSHIPALYA
BENGALURU-560 079
16 . MEHMOOB SHARIFF
S/O LATE ABDUL JABBER
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT. No.102, 1ST FLOOR
3RD MAIN, K. RANGANGATH COLONY
JAGAJEEVANA RAMANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 080
17 . IDAYATHULLA KHAN
S/O LATE ABDUL AZEEZ A
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT. No.70A/1, RASSHAD NAGAR
9TH CROSS, NAGAVARA MAIN ROAD
ARABIC COLLEGE POST
BENGALURU-560 045
18 . MUKTHAR PASHA
S/O LATE ABDUL GAFUR
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT. No.155, OLD MANGAMANNA PALYA
BEHIND MUNIREDDY LAYOUT
MECA MASJID SURROUNDING
BENGALURU-560 068
19 . H.M. VENKATESHA NAIK
S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT. HUTHANA HALLI
CHIKKAJALA POST
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
-
5
20 . M. ANJANAPPA
S/O LATE MASTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT. KONDASHETTY HALLI
SHIVAKOTE POST
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
21 . SMT. USHA RANI
W/O LATE L. CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT. No.7, THEJA NIVAS
ASHRAMA ROAD
NEAR NAGAVALLI KATTE
K.R. PURAM
BENGALURU-560 003
22 . B.M. VISHWANATHAN
S/O LATE B.R. MUNESHWARA SHASTRY
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT. No.6, MATHRU KRUPA
4TH CROSS, HULIMAVU ROAD
SOMESHWAR LAYOUT
NEAR ESHWARA TEMPLE
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 076
23 . N.S. RAVI KUMAR
S/O LATE K.N. SHIVA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT. No.3/A, MILK MAN STREET
LONG FORD CROSS
BENGALURU-560 025
24 . D. MARANNA
S/O LATE DODDALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT No.121, 3RD CROSS
2ND STAGE
KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560 078
-
6
25 . B.R. DEVARAJ
S/O LATE RAMAIAHA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT. C/O M. ANJANAPPA
R/AT. KONDASHETTY HALLI
SHIVAKOTE POST
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
26 . MOHAMMED ZIAULLA
S/O LATE ABDUL GAFFAR
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
C/O M.C. BASAVRAJU
ADVOCATE,
No.2, 4TH FLOOR
MOURYA MANSION
1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN
GANDHI NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 009
27 . LIYAKATH ALI KHAN
S/O LATE SHAIR KHAN
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
C/O M.C. BASAVARAJU
ADVOCATE
No.2, 4TH FLOOR
MOURYA MANSION
1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN
GANDHI NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 009
28 . A. VENKATESH
S/O LATE M. ABBAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT. No.952, 5TH CROSS
WEAVERS COLONY
GOTTIGERE POST
BENGALURU-560 083
29 . SATHYANARAYANA
S/O LATE DASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT No.179, 22ND A CROSS
-
7
JAYANAGAR 4TH BLOCK
BENGALURU-560 041
30 . E. RAMU
S/O LATE VEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT. KEMBATH HALLI
GOTTIGERE POST
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
31 . INAYATHULLA KHAN
S/O LATE ABDUL SHUKUR
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT. ATTIBELE POST
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 107
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R31)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
IN THE WRIT PETITION No.16331/2014 & 31002-31031/2014
C/W WRIT PETITION No.27513/2014 DATED 09.07.2015
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 15.11.2024 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
-
8
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This writ appeal is filed challenging the order dated 09.07.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16331/2014 and W.Ps.No.31002-31031/2014 c/w. W.P.No.27513/2014.
2. We have heard Shri. P.S. Rajagopal, learned senior counsel as instructed by Smt. H.R. Renuka, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri. V.S. Naik, learned counsel appearing for respondents.
3. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that the respondents were the permanent employees of the appellant - Corporation. The appellant - Corporation introduced a Circular bearing No.14 i.e., "Surakshatha Net Scheme" on 24.09.2004, which aimed at providing benefits to the employees working in the appellant - Corporation, who opted for voluntary retirement on health grounds. The respondents applied under this Scheme. On 03.12.2008, the Committee approved the respondents' voluntary retirement which offered specific
-
9 benefits for a period of four years based on their last drawn basic pay. Out of four years, 100% basic pay for the 1st year, 75% basic pay for the 2nd year, 50% basic pay for the 3rd year and 25% basic pay for the 4th year.
4. It is submitted that the appellant - Corporation revised pay scale of its employees vide Circular dated 12.01.2009, subject to certain terms and conditions. Thereafter, the appellant - Corporation issued another Circular on 05.10.2009, clarifying that the benefits of revision of pay scale will not be extended to "Surakshatha Net Scheme". Similarly placed respondents sought similar recalculations but were denied by the Labour Court in Application No.6/2012 vide order dated 16.11.2013. Aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, the appellant - Corporation filed W.P.No.27513/2014 while the respondents filed W.P.No.16331/2014 before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge by Judgment dated 09.07.2015 held that the employees are entitled to the benefits of the scheme on the last pay drawn by them and remanded the case to the Labour Court for the purpose of recalculation of
-
10 the benefits. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant - Corporation is before this Court.
5. It is contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that the Labour Court has incorrectly held that the respondents are entitled to pay revision benefits under "Surakshatha Net Scheme". Out of 31 respondents, respondents No.13, 17, 25, 28, 29 and 30 are not entitled for the benefit of the Scheme as they retired prior to 01.01.2008. The Circular issued on 24.09.2004, clearly stipulated that benefits under the Scheme should be calculated based on the last drawn basic pay i.e., one month prior to voluntary retirement. Despite this, the Labour Court determined entitlements using the revised pay scale, which was introduced by a Circular dated 12.01.2009, specifically excluding its applicability to "Surakshatha Net Scheme"
beneficiaries.
6. It is further contended that there were conflicting award by the Labour Court and consequently, the appellant -
Corporation filed W.P.No.27513/2014 while the respondents filed W.P.No.16331/2014, before the learned Single Judge,
-11
who held that the revised basic pay is to be taken into account for grant of benefits under the scheme and remanded the matter to the Labour Court for determination of the amounts due. It is also contended that the learned Single Judge erred in extending revised pay scale benefits to the respondents under "Surakshatha Net Scheme" which were explicitly excluded by the Circular dated 05.10.2009.
The said Circular was neither challenged nor invalidated by the learned Single Judge, thus rendering the order of revised pay to the beneficiaries under the Scheme, unsustainable.
7. It is further contended that the Voluntary Retirement Scheme is essentially contractual in nature and that the economic viability or financial capacity of the employer is an important factor, which has to be considered while deciding any dispute under any Voluntary Retirement Scheme. It is further contended that the application filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'ID Act'), were completely misconceived since the said provision applies only where amounts are admittedly due from the employer and the issue is only with regard to
-12
computation. It is submitted that in the instant case, the claim for 'Surakshatha Net Benefits' on the basis of the revised pay having been rejected by the employer, no application under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act, would be maintainable.
8. In support of the contentions, the learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions:
• ITI Limited v. ITI EX/VR Employees/Officers Welfare Association and Others, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 347;
• Officers & Supervisors of I.D.P.L. v. Chairman & M.D., I.D.P.L. and Others, reported in (2003) 6 SCC 490;
• HEC Voluntary Retd. Employees Welfare Society and Another v. Heavy Engineering Corpn. Ltd. and Others, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 708;
• A.K. Bindal and Another v. Union of India and Others, reported in (2003) 5 SCC 163;
• Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Ex-Employees Association & Others v. State of Maharashtra & Others reported in AIR 2023 SCC 792;
• Manojbhai N. Shah & Others v. Union of India & Others, by Order dated 07.01.2015 passed in Transfer Case (Civil) No.48 of 2010;
• Officers & Supervisors of I.D.P.L. v. Chairman & M.D.I.D.P.L and Others, reported in MANU/SC/0494/2003;
-
13 • State of A.P. and Another v. A.P. Pensioners Association and Others, reported in MANU/SC/2516/2005; • The Managing Director, MECOFED, Lumdiengjri, Shillong v. Shri. Tikender Singh and Others, by Order dated 04.08.2017 passed in WA No.37 OF 2012;
• R.B. Bansilal Abirchand Mills Co. Ltd. v. The Labour court, Nagpur and Others, reported in (1972) 1 SCC 154; • Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and Another, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 235;
• State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey and Others, reported in (2001) 1 SCC 73;
• Bank of India and Others v. O.P. Swarnakar and Others, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 721;
• Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and Others v. Ananta Saha and Others, reported in (2011) 5 SCC 142;
• Management of Regional Chief Engineer, Public Health and Engineering Department, Ranchi v. Their Workmen, Rep. by District Secretary, reported in (2019) 18 SCC 814; • Trojan and Company v. RM N.N. Nagappa Chettiar, reported in (1953) 1 SCC 456;
• State of West Bengal and Another v. West Bengal Registration Copywriters Association and Another, reported in (2009) 14 SCC 132;
• Bank of India and Another v. K. Mohandas and Others, reported in (2009) 5 SCC 313; and • Life Insurance Corporation of India v. D.J. Bahadur and Others, reported in (1981) 1 SCC 315.
-
14
9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the respondents were permanent employees of the appellant - corporation and had taken voluntary retirement on medical grounds under "Surakshata Net Facilities". As per the said scheme, the appellant has to pay 100%, 75%, 50% and 25% of last drawn basic pay as 'Surakshata Net Scheme' for a period of four years. By Annexure 'B' - Circular dated 11.07.2007, pay scale of the employees of the appellant were revised w.e.f. 01.04.2006 and the terminal benefits like Gratuity, Leave Encashment of the said revised pay scale have been paid to the respondents. However, Surakshata Net benefits under the revised pay scale were denied. The Corporation has issued one more circular under which the employees who were took voluntary retirement under Surakshata Net Facilities during 01.01.2008 to 01.01.2009 are held not entitled for Surakshata Net based on the revised basic pay. Immediately after issuance of the said circular all the respondents had made a representation to the Corporation requesting to extend the benefits under the revised pay
-
15 scale, but the appellant neither consider their request nor issued any endorsement. The respondents approached this Court and this Court was pleased to direct the appellant to consider the representation made by the respondents. But instead of considering the same, the appellant issued endorsements to the respondents rejecting the request of the respondents.
10. It is contended that since in a similar case, this Court was pleased to direct the workmen to approach the Labour Court for difference of Surakshatha Net Benefits, the respondents have approached the III Additional Labour Court by filing application under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act. The applications filed by an identically placed workmen was allowed, but the application filed by the respondents was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents had approached this Court. The Management had filed Writ Petition challenging the order of the Tribunal allowing the application in the case of an identically placed workman. The Writ Petitions were heard together. The Writ Petition filed by the workmen was allowed. The Writ Petition filed by the
-
16 Management was dismissed. For the limited purpose of computation of the amount the matter was remanded to III Additional Labour Court. However, before the III Additional Labour Court, the Corporation had filed the memo of calculation admitting their liability except in respect of five workmen and after passing the order the appellant has filed this appeal challenging the order passed by the Learned Single Judge.
11. We have considered the contentions advanced on either side. We find that the applications filed before the Labour Court were under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act. Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act, reads as under:-
"33-C. Recovery of money due from an employer.-
(1) x x x x x (2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government [within a period not exceeding three months]:
[Provided that where the presiding officer of a Labour Court considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further period as he may think fit.]"
-17
12. It is clear that the provision relates to computation of admitted amounts due from the employer to the workman.
13. The nature of adjudication under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act, is explained by the Apex Court in Ganesh Razak's case (supra), at paragraph No.12, which reads as under:-
"12. The High Court has referred to some of these decisions but missed the true import thereof. The ratio of these decisions clearly indicates that where the very basis of the claim or the entitlement of the workmen to a certain benefit is disputed, there being no earlier adjudication or recognition thereof by the employer, the dispute relating to entitlement is not incidental to the benefit claimed and is, therefore, clearly outside the scope of a proceeding under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to first decide the workmen's entitlement and then proceed to compute the benefit so adjudicated on that basis in exercise of its power under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. It is only when the entitlement has been earlier adjudicated or recognised by the employer and thereafter for the purpose of implementation or enforcement thereof some ambiguity requires interpretation that the interpretation is treated as incidental to the Labour Court's power under Section 33-C(2) like that of the Executing Court's power to interpret the decree for the purpose of its execution."
14. In the instant case, the Memorandum of Industrial Settlement of 17.07.1989, which is produced by both sides specifically states as follows:-
"5. DEARNESS ALLOWANCE The rates of Dearness allowance shall be on par with the rates sanctioned by the State Government to its employess
-18
from time to time and from the same dates. The enhanced Dearness Allowance shall be paid in cash.
If during the currency of this Settlement, the Government of Karnataka were to merge any portion of Dearness Allowance presently being paid to its empolyees, that portion of the Dearness Allowance so merged will also be reckoned at appropriate levels by the Corporation for determining the Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance, City Compensatory allowance and Gratuity payable to the employees of the Corporation, but shall not be reckoned for other purposes."
15. It is an admitted fact that it was on account of pay revision and DA merger announced by the State Government by Annexure - B that the pay of the workmen stood enhanced with effect from 01.04.2006. Annexure-A1, 'Surakshatha Net Scheme' dated 24.09.2004, provides for payment of "Present Basic Pay" in applicable proportions under the scheme. By Annexure - C dated 05.10.2009, the scheme was revised specifically providing for grant of benefits of the pay revision to workmen, who avail Voluntary Retirement on medical grounds under the scheme after 01.01.2009.
16. It is therefore clear that the DA merger which was not applicable for "any other benefits" under the Industrial Settlement of 17.07.1989 was specifically made applicable for the benefits under the 'Surakshatha Net
-
19 Scheme' for persons opting for Voluntary Retirement under the scheme from 01.01.2009. The resultant position would be that employees, who retire before such date under the scheme, would not be entitled to the benefit. The request made by the workmen, who retired Voluntarily under the scheme for the benefits of the scheme taking note of the merger of Dearness Allowance with effect from 01.04.2006 stood rejected by the Management.
17. As a matter of fact, the representation preferred by the workmen, which was directed to be considered by of this Court, was also rejected by specific endorsement to this effect. Therefore, the appellant contends that the contention of the workmen that they were entitled to the benefits under the Scheme and that the applications preferred by them under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act, were liable to be allowed cannot be accepted.
18. However, we notice that the learned Single Judge had considered the rival contentions and had framed an issue whether the workmen are entitled to the computation of VRS benefits based on the applicable pay or last drawn
-
20 basic pay. It is an admitted fact that the employees of KSRTC are not entitled to Pension. Gratuity, Provident Fund and Leave Encashment would be the only benefits they are entitled to on retirement. The 'Surkshatha Net Scheme' facility is undoubtedly a beneficial scheme which is made applicable only to employees who have to retire on account of medical reasons or disability suffered in the course of their service.
19. Therefore the question would be, whether this Court, in an intra-Court appeal, should reverse the findings of the learned Single Judge holding that the workmen are entitled to the benefit which would be available in a beneficial interpretation of the terms of a scheme framed to aid disabled employees get an additional benefit on opting for voluntary retirement on the ground of disability.
20. The learned senior counsel for the Management contends that a voluntary retirement scheme, which is contractual in nature, must be strictly construed. It is further contended relying on precedents that the financial
-
21 capacity of the Management is also to be taken into account while effecting pay revisions and offering voluntary retirement schemes and that the said aspect cannot be ignored by Courts.
21. We notice that Annexure - A, scheme was framed in 2004. Annexure - B, government circular dated 11.07.2007 provided for merging of existing DA with Basic Pay from 01.04.2006. The Industrial Settlement dated 17.07.1989 provided that the Dearness Allowance shall be on par with the rate sanctioned by the State Government to its employees. Any merger of DA ordered by the Government of Karnataka for its employees would be reckoned by the Corporation for determining DA, HRA, CCA and Gratuity payable, but not for other purposes. It is clear that Annexure - A, scheme is undoubtedly a piece beneficial legislation conferring additional benefits on disabled workmen who are forced to opt for Voluntary Retirement. The merger of DA was effective from 01.04.2006. It is two years thereafter in 2008, that the employees concerned had
-
22 submitted their application for voluntary retirement under the Scheme.
22. Annexure - A, scheme refers only to "Present Basic Pay". The issue whether the employees availing the benefit of the scheme would be entitled to the revised pay is addressed only by Annexure - C, which is issued on 05.10.2009, after the respondents herein had already availed Voluntary Retirement under the scheme. No reason is available for making the benefits of pay revision which was applicable from 01.04.2006 only to the persons availing Voluntary Retirement after 01.01.2009.
23. After considering the contentions advanced on both sides, the learned Single Judge, exercising his power of judicial review came to the conclusion that the denial of the benefits of revised pay which was effective from 01.04.2006 to employees, who voluntarily retired during the year 2008 was illegal and unjustified.
24. Having considered the contentions advanced by the appellants is detail and having gone through the
-
23 extensive precedents relied on, we are unable to hold that findings of the learned Single Judge were wholly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. We are therefore of the opinion that no interference is called for in this intra-Court appeal.
25. The Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly Dismissed. The appellants shall take appropriate steps to make the payments as directed by the learned Single Judge within two months from date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE cp*