Karnataka High Court
P Sanjeeva Raju vs Karnataka State Agro Corn Products ... on 29 September, 2022
Author: B. Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT APPEAL NO.1555/2016 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. P. SANJEEVA RAJU
S/O. LATE PUTTAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.5,
7TH CROSS, MAGADI ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 023.
2. G.N. GOVINDA REDDY
S/O. LATE G. NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.243,
7TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN,
SSA ROAD, HEBBAL,
BENGALURU - 560 032.
3. M. RAJA RAO KADAM
S/O. MUKUNDA RAO KADAM
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT N0.122,
MATADAHALLI, STEP DOWN
R.T. NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 032.
4. ERAPPA
S/O. RUDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
KSACP LTD.,
RAICHUR - 584 126.
2
5. S. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O. LATE SIDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.58,
1ST CROSS, 2ND MAIN,
RAMACHANDRAPURAM,
BENGALURU - 560 021.
6. D. SADURAK
S/O. DORAISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.203,
RAVI TEJA ENCLAVE,
PATEL MUNIYAPPA LAYOUT,
NAGENAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 032.
7. G. MOHAN
S/O. LATE K. GANAMUTHU,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.446,
BEHIND OLD CRESCENT ENGLISH SCHOOL,
GUDDADAHALLI ROAD,
R.T.NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 032.
8. A. GNANARAJAN
S/O. LATE ARULDASS,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.339/1
CHINNANA LAYOUT,
GUDDADAHALLI,
R.T. NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU - 560 032.
9. N. RANGAPPA
S/O. LATE NARASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.212,
3RD CROSS, MARUTHI NAGAR,
KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD,
SAHAKARA NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU - 560 092.
3
10. SANPANGI RAMA
S/O. MUNISWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.185,
MARUTHI NAGAR,
KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD,
SAHAKARA NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU - 560 092.
11. S. CHANDRA
S/O. LATE SHAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.74,
I MAIN, GUDDADAHALLI,
R.T. NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU - 560 032.
12. S. VASUDEVA RAO
S/.O LATE SHANKAR RAO,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.10,
2ND CROSS, M.R. GARDEN,
V. NAGENAHALLI,
R.T. NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU - 560 032.
13. K.M. MUNITHIMMAIAH
S/O. LATE MADDURAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
NO.34, MARUTHI NAGAR,
SHANKAR NAGAR POST,
KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 092.
14. A. BASAVARAJU
S/O. ANNAPPA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.8/C,
GOWRI NILAYA, PAPANNA BUILDING,
NEAR GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL,
BACK SIDE HEBBAL,
BENGALURU - 560 024.
15. M. SHEKAR
S/O. LATE MUNISWAMY,
4
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
NO.5, 3RD CROSS, K.N. LAYOUT,
ST. THOMAS TOWN POST,
LINGARAJAPURAM,
BENGALURU - 560 084.
16. B.N. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O. NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
NO.72, 4TH MAIN,
T.L. JAIRAJ BUILDING,
BYATARAYANAPURA,
BENGALURU - 560 094.
17. B.U. NAGARAJ
S/O. UGRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
NO.149, BYATARAYANAPURA,
BELLARY ROAD,
YALAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU - 560 092.
18. N. RAMACHANDRA RAO
S/O. LATE NARASOJI RAO,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
RESIDING AT PAPANNA LAYOUT
I CROSS, V. NAGENAHALLI,
R.T. NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU - 560 032.
19. ELIYAS
S/O. LATE SABJAN SAB,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.22,
5TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN,
NEAR MODERN SCHOOL,
GANGANAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 032.
20. C. NAGARAJU
S/O. LATE CHIKKA BYATIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.341,
HEBBAL POLICE STATION ROAD,
5
HEBBAL,
BENGALURU - 560 024.
21. P. BYRE GOWDA
S/O. PATALAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs.
a) B.N. LAKSHMI
W/O. P. BYREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
b) CHAITHANYA .B
D/O. P. BYREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS,
SINCE MINOR
REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN
HER MOTHER SMT. B.N. LAKSHMI,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
MAJARA HOSALLI,
VEERAPURA POST,
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK - 561 203.
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
(V.C.O. DATED 07.04.2022
APPELLANT NO.21(a) AND 21(b) ARE
IMPLEADED AS R14 AND R15)
22. M. KRISHNAPPA
S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
NEW NO.30, OLD NO.67,
PRABHAKAR LAYOUT,
I CROSS, V. NAGENAHALLI,
R.T. NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU - 560 032.
23. P.S. VENKATESH
S/O. SURYANARAYANA RAO
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
KUNGADIYAPPA COLLEGE ROAD
BASANNANAGUDI TEMPLE,
NEAR KARIYANNA HALLI,
6
DODDABALLAPURA - 561 203.
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
24. P.S. NAGARAJ
S/O. SURYANARAYANA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SY. NO.15,
SAPTHAGIRI NILAYA,
BEHIND SHANTHI NIKETAN SCHOOL,
KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR,
RAILWAY STATION ROAD,
DODDABALLAPUR - 561 203.
25. E. SHANKARA
S/O. LATE EKANATHA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.35, 4TH CROSS,
A SECTOR, AMRUTHA NAGAR,
SAHAKARA NAGARA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 097.
26. L. RADHAKRISHNA
S/O. NARAYANA SWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SRINIVASA NILAYA,
VARADANAHALLI, VEERAPURA POST,
DODDABALLAPURA - 561 203
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
27. B. PANNEER SELVAM
S/O. M. BENNY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.479,
SHIVASHANKARA BLOCK,
3RD CROSS, HEBBAL,
BENGALURU - 560 024.
28. A.M. NAGARAJ
S/O. LATE MUTHUKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.5,
'E' STREET, MUTHYALAMMA TEMPLE STREET,
THIMMAIAH ROAD CROSS,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
7
29. GOWRI BAI
D/O. CHANDRA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.1, 7TH CROSS,
KUSHALAPPA LAYOUT,
BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR,
R.T. NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU - 560 032.
30. TULASAMMA
W/O. LATE S. NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
PRASHANTH NAGAR,
JOGI MUTT ROAD, 4TH CROSS,
USTOVAMBA NILAYA,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501.
31. A. MASALAMANI
S/O. LATE ANTHONI,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
NO.97, 5TH CROSS,
ASHOKAPURAM COLONY,
YASHAWANTHAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 022.
32. S.K. BUGADE
S/O. K.B. BUGADE,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.20,
NEERABABI KEMPANNA LAYOUT,
HEBBAL, BENGALURU - 560 024.
33. P. MURTHY
S/O. LATE PONNU SWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
NO.6/1, 11TH CROSS,
10TH MAIN, LAKSHMAIAH BLOCK,
GANGA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 024.
34. B.C. SUJATHA
W/O. P. ANAND,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
NO.16, DEO ENCLAVE,
NEAR GOVERDHAN SCHOOL,
8
MARUTHI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 092.
35. R. CHIKKA KENCHAPPA
S/O. LATE RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
SOLADEVANAHALLI,
CHIKKABANAVARA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 090.
36. K. CHANDRAIAH
S/O. KUPPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
NO.1, GIRI NILAYA, S.T.S. ROAD,
BSF MAIN ROAD, YALAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 063.
37. KESHAVA REDDY
S/O. LATE CHIKKA NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
MARGONDANAHALLI,
T.C. PALYAM POST,
BENGALURU - 560 036.
38. C. KULLAIAH
S/O. CHIKKAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
NO.942/0, 4TH MAIN,
1ST CROSS, KALIDAS NAGAR,
B.S.K. III STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 085.
39. M. THIPPESWAMY
S/O. S. MALALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
GANGA NIVAS,
KURUVENAKATTE ROAD,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
40. M.R. GOWRAMMA
W/O. LATE PUTTASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
NO.24, D. SHIVARUDRAIAH,
GERAHALLI,
9
SONDEKOPPA POST,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 204.
41. KASI BAI
S/O. LAKSHMANA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
NO.267, 3RD MAIN, 6TH CROSS,
MC EC HS LAYOUT,
SHIVARAM KARANTH NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 077.
42. K.C. SHIVANNA
S/O. CHALUVA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
NO.933, SEETHAPPA LAYOUT,
CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 032.
43. V. NARAYANA RAJ
S/O. KONDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
NO.48-A, 2ND FLOOR,
1ST CROSS, CHOWDAIAH BLOCK,
NEAR HMT LAYOUT,
R.T. NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 032.
44. M.H. HANUMANTHAPPA
S/O. HOORKERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
KSACP LTD.,
CHITRADURGA UNIT,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
45. SHOBA S. PATIL
D/O. SHIVANNAGOWDA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
NEHRU NAGAR, III CROSS,
H.L.K. ROAD,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
46. MOHAMMED KIHALID
S/O. MD. GHOUSE,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
10
NO.87, NEAR RATION SOCIETY,
CHOLA GUDDE,
CHITRADURGA - 570 501.
47. THIPPESWAMY
S/O. MALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
OPPOSITE CHOLAGUDDA URUDU,
PRIMARY SCHOOL, H.L.K. ROAD,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
48. A.D. MOOSTURAMMA,
W/O. M. RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
BACKSIDE P & B QUARTERS,
JETTAPPA HOUSE SIDE,
CHOLAGUDDA, HOLALKERE ROAD,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
49. J. AJJAPPA
S/O. JAGALURAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
H.L.K. ROAD,
NEAR BASAVESHWARA
BODY BUILDIERS TOLL GATE,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
50. TULASAMMA
W/O. N. MURALIDHAR,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
NO.432, SRINIVASA NAGAR,
DODDABALLAPURA - 561 203.
51. GOWHAR JAN
W/O. MD. KHASIM SAB,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
NO.1473, ASSAR MOHALLA,
KADDIPUDI HOUSE,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
52. M.R. SRINATH
S/O. M.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
KUMBARA BEEDI,
OPP. HABEEB SAB COMPOUND,
11
HOLALKERE ROAD,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
53. P. MOKSHAPPA
S/O. PURADABASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
KSACP LTD.,
CHITRADURGA UNIT,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
54. G.Y. KARIGANNANAVAR
S/O. YELLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
NO.27, AMBLI BUILDING,
VIDYAGIRI, NEHRU NAGAR POST,
BELGAUM - 590 010.
55. R.P. ANKOLEKAR
S/O. PANDURANGA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
KSACP LTD.,
BELGAUM UNIT,
BELGAUM - 590 010.
56. M.L. PATIL
S/O. L.G. PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
KSACP LTD.,
BELGAUM UNIT,
BELGAUM - 590 010.
57. B.N. BAHTKANDE
S/O. NARAYANA BAHTKANDE,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
KSACP LTD.,
BELGAUM UNIT,
BELGAUM - 590 010.
58. SHASHIKALA KESARAKUPPA
W/O. RUDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
NO.43, SECTOR VI,
CHANNAMMA SOCIETY,
SRINAGAR,
BELGAUM - 590 010.
12
59. A.Y. ITAGIKAR
S/O. YESHWANTHA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
KSACP LTD., BELGAUM UNIT,
BELGAUM - 590 010.
60. R.A. MULLA
S/O. RAMZAN ALI KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
NO.1913, MURAGAI ROAD,
KAKATI, BELGAUM - 591 130.
61. VIJAYALAKSHMI
D/O. RAMA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
KSACP LTD., BELGAUM UNIT,
BELGAUM - 590 010 .
62. C.D. HALAPPANAVARA
S/O. D. HALAPPANAVAR,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
KSACP LTD., BELGAUM UNIT,
BELGAUM - 590 010 .
63. M.K. GUNDAPPANAVAR
S/O. KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
NO.465, AMBEDKAR GALLI,
BASAVANA KUDACHI,
BELGAUM - 591 024.
64. C.B. PARVAINAVAR
S/O. B.A. PARAVAINAVAR,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
KSACP LTD., BELGAUM UNIT,
BELGAUM - 590 010.
65. K.A. EKKUNDI
S/O. LATE AMINSAB,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
KSACP LTD.,
BELGAUM UNIT,
BELGAUM - 590 010.
13
66. S.P. BHEEMA SHANKAR
SINCE DIED ON 03.09.2013
BY HIS LRs.
a) SMT. RENUKA B. PANTOJI
W/O. S.P. BHEEMA SHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
b) SMT. SUVARNA
D/O. S.P. BHEEMA SHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
c) SRI. ARAVIND
S/O. S.P. BHEEMASHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
d) SMT. JYOTHI
D/O. S.P. BHEEMASHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
e) SRI SANGAMESHA
S/O. S.P. BHEEMASHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
(a) TO (e) ARE RESIDING AT
KSACP LTD., BELGAUM UNIT,
BELGAUM - 590 010.
67. L. RAMESH
S/O. NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
NO.10/6/40, MUKHALPET,
RAICHUR - 584 102.
68. LAKSHMAMMA
D/O. NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
NO.12/6/331, TEACHERS COLONY,
RAICHUR - 584 101.
69. KHAJA BEE
W/O. HUSSAIN SAB,
NO.12/6/685/13,
SRINIVASA NAGAR,
14
NEAR ALAM PRABHU SCHOOL,
RAICHUR - 584 102.
70. KUPPE RAO
S/O. LATE HANUMANTHA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
VARANDI MUTT KASABA,
LINGASUGUR TALUK,
RAICHUR DISTRICT.
71. ERANNA
S/O. NARASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
NO.36, ASHOKAPUR,
RAICHUR DISTRICT.
72. YAMANUR SAB
S/O. NOOR SAB,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
NO.68, HAMALI COLONY,
PANDURANGA TEMPLE,
KOPPAL - 583 031.
73. NEELAWWA
W/O. HANUME GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
SILK MARKET,
NEW COURT ROAD,
NEAR J.B. ROAD,
LINGSUGUR TALUK,
RAICHUR DISTRICT.
74. M.N. ZABIULLA
S/O. ABDUL MAJID,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
KSACP LTD., MYSORE UNIT,
MYSORE - 570 016.
75. B.H. VENKATACHARI
S/O. LATE HANUMANTHACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
KSACP LTD., MYSORE UNIT,
MYSORE - 570 016.
15
76. M.N. VASANTH KUMAR
S/O. N. NARASIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
NO.1707, 1ST CROSS,
SEETHARAMA RAO ROAD,
K.R. MOHALLA,
MYSORE - 570 004.
77. SIDDAMMA
W/O. NAGANNA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
KSACP LTD., MYSORE UNIT,
MYSORE - 570 016.
78. NANJAMMA
W/O. PUTTAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
KSACP LTD., MYSORE UNIT,
MYSORE - 570 016.
79. M. SIDDAMMA
W/O. MARISWAMY NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
KSACP LTD., MYSORE UNIT,
MYSORE - 570 016.
80. R.M. KRISHNA MURTHY
S/O. BHEEMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
SHANTHANUR VILLAGE,
KALIDASA CIRCLE,
MANDYA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT.
81. P.N. CHAVAN
S/O. N.S. CHAVAN,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
NO.306, SARVODAYA COLONY,
HINDWARE,
BELGAUM - 590 010.
82. S. NANJUNDA SWAMY
S/O. SIDDE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
NO.129, 4TH CROSS,
16
4TH STAGE, 12TH MAIN,
T.K. LAYOUT,
MYSORE - 570 009. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K. SUBBA RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI KUTTAPPA B.D. BY SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE (V.C.))
AND:
1. KARNATAKA STATE AGRO CORN
PRODUCTS LIMITED,
REGD. OFFICE: POST BAG NO.2479,
BALLARY ROAD, HEBBAL,
BENGALURU - 560 024
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD PROCESSING
& HARVEST TECHNOLOGY,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
MULTISTORIED BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
MULTISTORIED BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. M. NAGESH
S/O. MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
NO.2/B, 19TH 'B' CROSS,
MUNESHWARA BLOCK, GEF POST,
BENGALURU - 560 026.
5. VITTAL NADUVINAMANI
S/O. VEERAPPA K. NADUVINAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
C/O. GUNDAPPA REDDY N.
I CROSS , VENKATESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD,
NO.4, GUNDAPPA REDDY BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 032.
17
6. V. MUNIYAPPA
S/O. LATE VENKATAGIRIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT RKB ROAD,
V. NAGENAHALLI, R.T. NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 032.
7. A. MOHAN RAO
S/O. LATE ANNOJI RAO,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
NO.14, B. MAIN SUBRAMANYA NAGAR,
NEAR GANESHA KRUPA,
BENGALURU - 560 021.
8. P.S. SATHYANARAYANA
S/O. SAMPATH RAJU P.M.
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
NO.2, CHANNAPPA HOUSE,
ARDENAHALLI RAILWAY COLONY,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.
9. CHIKKAPUTTAIAH
S/O. LATE MALLEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
NO.292/2, ASWATHAPPA BUILDING,
JALAHALLI VILLAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 013.
10. R. ANANTHA RAM NAIK
S/O. LATE M. RAMASWAMY NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT NO.144, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
BETWEEN 7TH AND 8TH CROSS,
CHAMARAJAPETE,
BENGALURU - 560 018.
11. C. ABDUL RASHEED
S/O. LATE C. ABDUL GAFFAR,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT NO.104, MACKAN ROAD,
SHIVAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
12. SMT. R.P. KURIYAWAR
NO.1784, LBS NAGAR,
18
B.K. KANGRALI,
BELAGAVI - 590 002.
13. S.B. KALAPATRI
S/O. B. KALAPATRI,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
NO.4746, CHAWALAS GALLI,
BELAGAVI - 590 002.
14. B.N. LAKSHMI
W/O. P. BYREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
15. CHAITHANYA B.
D/O. P. BYREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS,
SINCE MINOR
REPRESENTED BY HER
NATURAL GUARDIAN HER MOTHER,
SMT. B.N. LAKSHMI
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT MAJARA HOSALLI,
VEERAPURA POST,
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK - 561 203
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
(V.C.O. DATED 07.04.2022
APPELLANT NO.21(a) AND 21(b) ARE
IMPLEADED AS R14 AND R15). ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI R. SUBRAMANYA, AAG A/W
SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R-2 & R-3;
SRI BASAVARAJ H., ASHAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-4 TO R-15)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12/09/2013 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NOS.46871-
46962/2012 AND REVIEW PETITION NOS.334 AND 419-
509/2014 DATED 17/02/2016.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS,
THIS DAY, B.VEERAPPA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
19
JUDGMENT
The respondents who are the petitioners before the learned single Judge filed W.P.Nos.46871- 46962/2012 C/w. W.P.Nos.47081-47170/2012 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement No.KSACP/ADM/VRS/476/2012-13 DATED 14/08/2012 (Annexure - Z15) insofar as the denial of the 5th pay commission benefits from 01/04/2006 to October 2010 and to issue a mandamus directing respondent No.1- Karnataka State Agro Corn Products Limited to extend the benefits of 5th pay commission revised pay-scale from 01/04/2006 to October 2010 and to the respondents to disburse the gratuity amount available in the Insurance Linked Group Gratuity Scheme to all the petitioners and also to issue mandamus to respondent No.1 to pay employers contribution to Provident Fund @ 12% on the DA/interim relief released and paid pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 05/07/2012 passed in W.P.Nos.22671-766/2012 (Annexure - Z13) and to direct respondent No.1 to release any pay the 20 difference of gratuity amount to the petitioners as set out at Annexure - Z16.
2. It is the specific case of the petitioners that they are the employees of respondent No.1. The State Government, vide order dated 24/09/2009, to implement Voluntary Retirement Scheme ("VRS") and close the company by transferring the assets of the company to the Government. The State Government issued another order dated 22/02/2012 to the effect that those who do not opt for voluntary retirement, they should be retrenched or compulsorily retired from the service as per Annexure - C. In pursuance to the said Government Order, respondent No.1 issued a circular dated 29/02/2012 notifying the VRS in terms of the guidelines issued by Karnataka State Bureau of Public Enterprises ("KSBPE") as per Annexure - D. The guidelines on VRS in public sector enterprises in Karnataka dated 10/08/2001 is produced at Annexure-E. It is the further case of the petitioners that the 21 petitioners made representation (Annexure-F) dated 03/03/2012 to respondent No.1 to inform them of the financial benefits going to be extended to them if they opt for voluntary retirement. But without informing them even as to the components that the company is going to incorporate while arriving at the basis pay and the rate of dearness allowance considered for the purposes of calculation of ex-gratia and other benefits. Respondent No.1 pressurized the petitioners to submit voluntary retirement applications on or before 30/03/2012, failing which, their services will be either retrenched or compulsorily retired and thus the petitioners submitted the voluntary retirement applications and respondent No.1 accepted the applications, communicated its acceptance and relieved the petitioners from the services vide office order dated 31/03/2012 (Annexure - G). Thereafter, the details of voluntary retirement compensation, E.L. encashment and gratuity calculation as on 31/03/2012 was prepared by respondent No.1 as per Annexure-H and the State 22 Government has released the funds as per the letter dated 07/04/2012 (Annexure - I). In fact, none of the company assets are hypothecated against borrowings. The decision to close the company is only to knock the immovable property of the company. Only 157 employees were on the rolls of the company, out of which 42 are on deputation in other public sector undertakings.
3. It is further contended that the State Government, in pursuance of the Government Order dated 22/02/2012, respondent No.1-Corporation had planned to call back even those who are on deputation and relieve them from the service. They approached this Court in W.P.Nos.638-677/2012 and this Court passed an ad interim order on 21/02/2012 and modified the same on 28/02/2012. By virtue of the said interim order, they are continuing in their respective places. It is further submitted that the Board of Directors of respondent No.1 in their 187th board meeting held on 23 19/08/2008 have passed a resolution that the Government of Karnataka in the order dated 09/04/2008 has approved the revised scale of pay to its employees with effect from 01/07/2005. Therefore, the same shall be extended to the company employees as reasonable. Pursuant to which, the company has sent the proposal 05-06/09/2008 (Annexure-M) to the State Government for financial assistance along with the documents supporting the implementation of the revised pay-scales in two other public sector undertakings i.e., Karnataka State Seeds Corporation Limited and Karnataka State Seeds Certification Agency, Bangalore (Annexures - N, P & Q) respectively. Respondent No.1 had also written a letter to the Karnqataka State Breweries Corporation Ltd., on 17-25/02/2010, requesting them to extend the benefits of revised pay scales to their employees who are on deputation till their period of deputation. Respondent No.1-Corporartion has passed an order on 17/02/2011 extending the revised pay scale as per the recommendation of the 5th pay 24 commission and merging the same with the dearness allowance as per Annexure - S. In view of the above, the petitioners also requested respondent No.1 to end them on deputation to other public sector undertakings as they were not getting salary regularly. The Secretary to Government, Department of Public Sector Enterprises has also sent a letter to respondent No.3 on 26/05/2011 which is produced at Annexure - T. The said move by the Secretary to Government, Department of Public Sector Enterprises, is pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.35884/2010. Pursuant thereon, the petitioners through their Trade Union have made several representations to respondent No.1 to pay their salary, give the benefit of revision of pay scale as per the recommendation of the 5th pay commission instead of sending them on voluntary retirement send them on deputation to other public sector undertakings the representations are produced at Annexures - W, Y, Z and Z1 respectively. As respondent No.1 did not consider the request, the petitioners resorted to 25 indefinite strike from 23/02/2012 by causing advance notice to respondent No.1 as well as the jurisdictional police, copy of which is at Annexure - Z2. At that point of time, respondent No.1 issued a letter dated 09/02/2012 informing the petitioners that the salary will be paid before 18/02/2012, copy of the letter is produced at Annexure - Z3, but the said commitment was not met by them. On the other hand, issued another letter dated 18-21/02/2012 requesting for time to release and pay the arrears of salary as per Annexure
- Z4. It is the further case of the petitioners is that after notifying the VRS, the Board of Directors of respondent No.1 in their 202nd meeting held on 05/03/2012 have resolved that the Company has sanctioned revised pay scale and sanctioned the monetary benefits with effect from 01/11/2010 and the same will be disbursed to all the employees from 01/02/2011. The arrears will be paid from 01/11/2010 till 31/01/2011. In addition to that, the D.A. arrears also to be paid. All the employees working in 26 respondent No.1-Corporation are eligible for 15% interim relief as per recommendation of the 5th pay commission. After discussion, it was resolved to the effect that respondent No.1-Corporation shall release arrears of pay, D.A. and interim relief dues to its employees and to write to Government for release of Rs.1.00 crore to meet employees dues against the D.A. arrears, arrears of pay and interim relief. A copy of the minutes of the 202nd meeting of the Board of Directors dated 05/03/2012 is produced at Annexure - Z5. The petitioners have made representations dated 14/03/2012 and 28/03/2012 (Annexures Z6 & Z7) requesting respondent No.1 to release and pay the benefits. However, without considering the same, respondent No.1 relieved the petitioners from the service on 31/03/2012.
4. It is further contended that the Board of Directors of respondent No.1-Corporation again in their 203rd meeting held on 16/04/2012 have passed a 27 resolution sanctioning the additional dearness allowance at 7.25% from 01/01/2012 and 31/03/2012 and directed the Managing Director to submit proposal to the Government for final approval. By an endorsement dated 23/06/2012 petitioners were informed that steps will be taken to pay the voluntary retirement benefits. Petitioners have made representations to release and pay all the benefits to which they are entitled. But the same was not considered. It is also contended that respondent No.1-Corporation had Insurance Linked Group Gratuity Scheme. As per the VRS, the gratuity shall be paid in accordance with law and the State Government has taken the responsibility to release the funds required for implementation of the VRS as loan. Therefore, whatever amount accumulated in the group gratuity scheme shall be disbursed by respondent No.1 regarding Insurance Linked Group Gratuity Scheme is produced at Annexure - Z12. As the same was not released and paid, petitioners filed W.P.Nos.22671- 766/2012 before this Court and this Court disposed of 28 the writ petitions on 05/07/2012 with a direction to respondent No.1 to release and pay the arrears to which the petitioners are entitled as per law as per Annexure - Z13.
5. When the things stood thus, the Government of Karnataka by its order dated 09/04/2007 had approved the revised scale of pay to its employees with effect from 01/07/2005 with the monitory benefit from 01/04/2006 and the proposal was placed before the Board of Directors of respondent No.1 in their 187th meeting held on 19/08/2008. The Board of Directors decided in the said meeting that having regard to the financial implication the Company should seek an approval of the Government and the proposal was sent for approval, but the said proposal was turned down by the government as per its letter dated 26/05/2009 (Annexure - Z14). Again, the Government vide order No.KRU THO-E/37/KRU E MUM/2010 dated 29/01/2011 accorded approval for implementing 5th pay commission 29 pay scale to the employees on the condition to meet the expenditure out of internal resources of the company. But the respondent implemented the benefits of 5th pay commission from 01/11/2010 instead of 01/04/2006 as per the Government Order. The matter was again placed before the Board of Directors in their 202nd meeting held on 05/03/2012. The Board has resolved that the company shall write to the government for release of additional one crore to meet the employees due against D.A. arrears, pay scale arrears and interim relief amount payable to them. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioners are entitled for the benefits of 5th pay commission with effect from 01/04/2006. Inspite of directions issued by this Court earlier, respondent No.1 has erroneously issued the endorsement dated 14/08/2012 denying the benefits from 01/04/2006 as per Annexure - Z15. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court for the relief sought for. 30
6. Respondent No.1 filed objections before the learned single Judge and contended that the petitioners are not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed in limine. It is further contended that respondent No.1-company was running under heavy loss on account of and closed down all the five production units of the company since 2005-2006, all the five energy food plants of the company came to stand still from September 2006. The company to pay the salaries to the employees without work and meet the administrative expenses. All the efforts to revive the company were futile and there was no chance of revival of the company to run its activities. During the year 2005 and onwards, respondent No.1-company on the directions and approval of the State Government sent as many as 42 employees on deputation to Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Limited, with a view to reduce the strength of the staff of the company. Thereafter on the representations submitted by the 31 employees and the employees union on the proposal submitted by respondent No.1, the State Government passed order dated 24/09/2009 (Annexure - C) to close the company and also accorded approval for retirement of 124 employees of the company introducing Voluntary Retirement Scheme. It is further contended that 124 employees opted under VR Scheme who have been relieved from services on 12/10/2009 and 126 employees continued in the services of the company.
7. It is further contended that the Company has introduced VR Scheme as per the Karnataka State Bureau of Public Sector Enterprises in Karnataka referred as KSBPE guidelines dated 10/08/2001 vide Annexure-E. The State Government ordered for closure of respondent No.1-Company and in this behalf VR Scheme was introduced for 157 employees including 41 employees working on deputation. Respondent No.1- Company issued circular dated 29/02/2012 for introduction of VR Scheme produced as Annexure-R3 to 32 avail the benefits of said scheme and the same is produced as Annexure-R4. The State Government accorded approval for the voluntary retirement of the employees under the scheme on the proposals submitted by Respondent No.1-Company. The employees were fully aware and having knowledge of the terms and conditions of VR scheme and the benefits that they will get under the scheme. On acceptance of the applications of 116 employees, the 1st Respondent Company has relieved the services of those employees as on 31/03/2012. Some of the Petitioners have submitted undertaking on stamp paper and copy of such undertaking is produced at Annexure-R5. It is further contended that from October 2011 to March 2012 Company had no money to pay the salaries to the employees and only on receipt of Rs.2.00 crores soft loan vide Government order dated 22/02/2012 in March, 2012 the respondent-Company paid the pending salaries to the employees. Hence, it is submitted that, as last option and with good intention of helping the 33 employees, the VR Scheme was introduced during the year 2012.
8. It is further contended that in the in the 187th Board meeting of the Company held on 19/08/2008, the Company has not approved the recommendations of 5th Pay Commission pay scales to the employee of the Company, though the Board was inclined to consider the request of the employees sympathetically, however, as it involve substantial financial implication, the Board decided that the Company should seek the approval of the State Government in this regard, as is binding on the Company to obtain the Government approval as per Notification and Circular dated 19/07/1997, wherein, it has been clearly directed that Government will not give post-facto approval to any agreement with regard to wage settlements and benefits with their employees unless the guidelines issued by the finance department KSBPE from time to time strictly adhered to. It is further 34 contended that with regard to Government order dated 09/04/2007, the Government had approved the revised scale to its employees with effect from 01/07/2005 with the monetary only from 01/04/2006 is a fact and the said Government Order is applicable only to the employees of the State Government and not automatically apply to the company's employees. It is the policy decision of the respondent/company to revise the pay scales depending upon the financial condition and situation of the company and the and the Board of the 1st respondent company has to take decisions and approve the major revision of pay scales and the 1st respondent/Company has not adopted and extended the 5th Pay Commission Pay Scales to its employees. It is submitted that, revising of the 5th Pay Commission Pay scales with effect from 01/04/2006 applies only to Government employees and not automatically applies to the company employees. It is further contended that even in implementation of 5th Pay Commission pay scales as per the Government Order dated 07/01/1999 35 the then revised pay scales has not been automatically applied to the employee of the 1st respondent-company and on the basis of the then financial position, the Board of the 1 Respondent-Company taken decision to adopt and extend the benefits of 4th Pay Commission pay scales to the employees of the Company and in this behalf copies of Government order 07/01/1999 and Government letter dated 29/11/1999, are produced marked as Annexure-R-14 and R-15 respectively.
9. The 1st respondent-company submits that the 5th Commission pay scales has been adopted and extended to the employees of the Company, based on the Company rules and Government approval and based on the internal financial resources of the Company. It is submitted that the 1st respondent-Company has requested the State Government vide KSACP/ADM/Pave/1175/2008-09 dated 06/09/2008 and 22/11/2008 according approval to adopt and extend the 5th Pay Commission Scales to the Company employees. 36 As the company is running under heavy loss, the Government of Karnataka vide its letter dated 26/05/2009 Annexure-Z14 rejected the proposal of Company regarding adoption of 5th Pay Commission pay scales to the employees of the 1st respondent-Company. Thereby, the 1st respondent-Company contended that the petitioners were not entitled for any relief and sought to dismiss the writ petitions.
10. Learned single Judge after hearing both the parties, by the impugned order dated 12/09/2013 dismissed the writ petitions holding that once the employees opt to retire under VRS and accept the benefits thereunder, their rights as employees come to an end and thereafter they cannot again assert their rights and re-agitate their claim for pay revision for pre- retirement period nor can they contend that they opted for VRS under compulsion. Hence, the present intra Court appeal is filed by the claimants/appellants. 37
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
12. Sri K. Subba Rao, learned senior counsel for the petitioners contended with vehemence that the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petitions mainly on the ground that the employee-employer relationship has been ceased on account of volunteer retirement under the VRS scheme is totally irrelevant in deciding the writ petition. He would further contend that the learned single Judge failed to notice that the appellants are not seeking any amount in respect of the amount set out in the VRS scheme. They are seeking for an amount which is accrued to their account and what they are entitled to, as per their existing right while they were in service and the only question before this Court is, whether the petitioners were granted the relief sought in the writ petitions i.e., the 5th Pay Commission pay scales payable to the retired employees who are entitled for the 5th Pay 38 Commission with effect from 01/04/2006 to October, 2010 and the employees contribution to Provident Fund with interest at 12% on the D.A. and the interim relief paid by respondent No.1 and disbursement of gratuity amount available in the Insurance Linked Group Gratuity Scheme Fund to all the Employees. The said fact has not been considered by the learned single Judge. It is further contended that it is not in dispute about the availing of the VRS Scheme benefits in the instant case which is a self-retirement scheme and not the VRS scheme and they are asking only the benefit which they are entitled to as per the orders in W.P.Nos.22671- 22766/2012. Learned single Judge has erroneously rejected the writ petitions mainly on the ground that once the petitioners are extended the benefits available under the voluntary retirement scheme, they are not entitled for any revision of pay or for any relief. He further contended that the benefit of 5th pay commission has been paid as per the decision of the Board and the approval of the Government from October 2010. He 39 would further contend that the implementation of resolution of the Board of Directors dated 19/08/2008 (Annexure - M), Subject No.5, the Managing Director informed the Board that Government of Karnataka in its Order No.FD 08 SRP 2007 dated 09/04/2008 had approved revised scale of pay to its employees with effect from 01/07/2005 with the monetary benefit from 01/04/2006. The increase of scale of pay was payable in cash from 01/04/2007 and the arrears for the period from 01/04/2006 to 31/03/2007 would be disbursed in the financial year 2008-09. The Company had been extending to his employees the pay structure, grant of DA, HRA, CCA etc., on the pattern approved by Government of Karnataka to its employees from time to time. Further it is contended that the KSACPL Employees' Mahamandala in its letter dated 07/08/2008 had requested the Company to extend the benefit of revision of pay scale to the employees of the Company from a prospective date and consider payment of arrears as and when the Company's financial position permits. 40 Though the Board was inclined to consider the above proposal sympathetically, however as it involved substantial financial implication, the Board decided that the Company should seek approval from the Government in this regard. Accordingly, the State Government approved the recommendation of implementation of the 5th Pay Commission respondent No.1-Company vide Government Order dated 29/01/2011 subject to condition that the financial burden has to be sourced from the company resources and the said order of approval reached finality. In the proposal for approval dated 29/01/2011, as per Annexure - R17 dated 15/10/2010, it was recommended to implement the 5th Pay Commission to the employees. In the last paragraph of the proposal dated 15/10/2010 to respondent No.1-company, it is stated that respondent No.1-company will take care of the financial burden only upto Rs.6.00 lakh and they will pay the revised pay scale based on the proposal of the company and the State Government approved the same. 41 The approval of the State Government dated 29/01/2011 has reached finality. Thereby, once respondent No.1-company has passed a resolution and the same has been approved by the State Government, the appellants-employees are entitled for pay scale with effect from 01/04/2006 to October 2010. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ appeal.
13. Sri R.S.Hegde, learned counsel for respondent No.1 reiterating the averments made in the statement of objections contended that the 5th Pay Commission approved by the State Government is only for the Government Employees and it cannot be applicable for the employees of respondent No.1- Company under the resolution passed by respondent No.1 on 19/08/2008. Though the State Government had approved the recommendation dated 15/10/2010 and 29/01/2011, the company has to bear the financial implications. Therefore, respondent No.1 again passed the resolution as per Annexure - S dated 17/02/2011 42 denying the benefits. Admittedly, the pay scales as contended had extended from 01/07/2005 and monetary benefits from 01/11/2010. The claimants having challenged the subsequent resolution Annexure - S passed by respondent No.1. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled for any relief exercising the power under Section 4 of the High Court Act, 1961. He further contended that the order passed by the learned single Judge is just and proper and the appellants are not entitled for any relief. Hence, he sought to dismiss the appeal. In support of his contention, he relied upon the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Workmen Represented by Secretary vs. Reptakos Brett. & Co. Ltd. & another [(1992)1 SCC 290] and the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Voluntarily Retired Employees Welfare Association and others vs. State of Karnataka, Department of Agriculture, Rep. by its Secretary & another [ILR 2011 Kar. 2431].
43
14. Sri R.Subramanya, learned Additional Advocate General appeared along with Smt. Pramodhini Kishan, Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State Government while justifying the order passed by the learned single Judge, contended that the approval of the Government is subject to the financial condition/capacity of the Company. The Government does not specifically give effect to implement 5th pay commission. He further contended that Annexure - S passed by respondent No.1 on 17/02/2011 giving revised pay scale with effect from 01/07/2005 and monetary benefits 01/11/2010 is not challenged by the appellants/claimants. He would further contend that are once the employees opt to retire under VRS, they cannot re-agitate the benefits subsequent to their retirement. He further contended that the appellants/employees of respondent/Company cannot seek parity on par with the Government employees. In support of his contention, he relied upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 44 in the case of A.K. Bindal & another vs. Union of India & others [(2003)5 SCC 163]. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the appeal.
15. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for the parties, the following points arise for our consideration in the present writ appeal are:
"(1) Whether the appellants have made out a case to grant 5th pay commission with effect from 01/04/2006 to October 2010 in view of the resolution passed by respondent No.1 in the Board of Directors meeting held on 19/08/2008 as per Annexure - M, Subject No.5 and approved by the State Government on 29/01/2011 in the facts and circumstances of the present case?
(ii) Whether the appellants have made out a case to interfere with the Order passed by the learned single Judge, in the facts and circumstances of the present case?"
16. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers, carefully. 45
17. It is undisputed fact that all the appellants/petitioners are the employees of respondent No.1/Karnataka State Agro Corn Products Limited. The State Government, by the Order dated 24.09.2009, introduced the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to the said Government Order, the respondent No.1 issued the Circular dated 29.02.2012 notifying the terms and conditions of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The appellants/ petitioners made representation to the respondent No.1 to notify them with regard to the financial benefits that will be given to them, if they opt for Voluntary Retirement Scheme. It is also not in dispute that the appellants submitted their application for Voluntary Retirement and the respondent No.1 accepted the same and communicated its acceptance and relieved the appellants from services vide Order dated 31.03.2012.
18. It is also not in dispute that the 5th pay commission came into force with effect from 01.04.2006 46 to October 2010. The grievance of the appellants is that they were in service as on the date of introduction of the 5th pay commission and they were permitted to take voluntary retirement, only on 31.03.2012. Thereby, they are entitled to the benefits of 5th pay commission. Therefore, appellants approached the respondent No.1 with a representation to provide them with the benefits of 5th pay commission.
19. On the representation made by the employees, the respondent No.1, in its 187th meeting of the Board of Directors held on 19.08.2008 in subject No.5, passed the resolution, as under:
"Subject No.5: Revision of Pay Scales The Managing Director informed the Board that Government of Karnataka in its order No.FD 08 SRP 2007 dated 9th April 2007 had approved revised scale of pay to its employees with effect from 1st July 2005 with the monetary benefit from 1st April 2006. The increase of scales of pay was payable in cash from 1st April 2007 and the arrears for the period from 47 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007 would be disbursed in the financial year 2008-09. The Company had been extending to its employees the pay structure, grant of DA, HRA, CCA, etc on the pattern approved by Government of Karnataka to its employees, from time to time.
Further the KSACPL Employees' Mahamandala in its letter dated 7th August 2008 had requested the Company to extend the benefit of revision of pay scale to the employees of the Company from a prospective date and consider payment of arrears as and when the Company's financial position permits.
The proposal to extend the revision of pay scale to the employees of the Company with effect from 1st August 2008 as contained in G.O. 9th April 2007 involves out flow on this account would be Rs.6.85 lakhs per month.
Though the Board was inclined to consider the above proposal sympathetically, however as it involved substantial financial implication, the Board decided that the Company should seek the approval of Government in this regard."
20. It is an undisputed fact that, the respondent No.1, on the first occasion submitted the report to the 48 Government recommending to give benefits to the appellants. However, the State Government rejected the said recommendation. Thereafter, again, the respondent No.1 sent the proposal on 15.10.2010 as per Annexure-R17 wherein, it is specifically stated as under:
"¥ÀjµÀÌøvÀ ªÉÃvÀ£À ±ÉæÃt ¤ÃqÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¢£ÁAPÀ 19.08.2008 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀqÉzÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ 187£Éà DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¥ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ, ªÀÄAqÀ½ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ eÁjUÉ vÀgÀĪÀAvÉ w½¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ £ÀqÀªÀ½AiÀÄ£ÀÄß F ¥ÀvÀæzÉÆA¢UÉ ®UÀwÛ¸À¯ÁVzÉ. D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è 288 d£À C¢üPÁj/ £ËPÀgÀjzÀÄÝ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀéAiÀÄA ¤ªÀÈwÛ eÁjUÉ vÀA¢gÀ°®è. DzÀ PÁgÀt ªÀiÁ¹PÀ ªÉZÀÑ ºÉZÁÑV §gÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ. DzÀgÉ 2009gÀ°è 124 d£À C¢üPÁj/£ËPÀgÀgÀÄ ¸ÀéAiÀÄA ¤ªÀÈwÛ AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄrAiÀÄ°è ¤ªÀÈvÀÛgÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è G½¢gÀĪÀ 123 d£À C¢üPÁj/ £ËPÀgÀjUÉ 5£Éà ªÉÃvÀ£À ¥ÀjµÀÌøvÀ ªÉÃvÀ£À ±ÉæÃtÂAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C¼ÀªÀr¸ÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ vÀUÀ®ÄªÀ ºÉZÀÄѪÀj ªÉÆvÀÛ PÉêÀ® gÀÆ.6®PÀë ¨ÉÃPÁUÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ. EzÀPÉÌ CUÀvÀå«gÀĪÀ DyðPÀ ºÉÆgÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÉÄà ¨sÀj¸À®Ä ªÀåªÀ¸ÉÜ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀî¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ £ËPÀgÀjUÉ ªÉÃvÀ£À ¥ÀjµÀÌgÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä UËgÀªÁ¤évÀªÁV ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸ÀÄvÁÛ C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ vÀªÀÄä°è ªÀÄ£À« ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛêÉ."
Based on the resolution and the recommendation made by the respondent No.1, the State Government by 49 the communication dated 29.01.2011 approved the recommendation for implementation of 5th pay commission to the employees of respondent No.1 subject to the condition that the financial burden has to be sourced from the company resources, which reads as under:
"ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, G¯ÉèÃTvÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è PÉÆÃjzÀAvÉ, ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ C¢üPÁj £ËPÀgÀjUÉ gÁdåzÀ 5£Éà ªÉÃvÀ£À DAiÉÆÃUÀzÀ ²¥sÁgÀ¸ÀÄìUÀ¼À£ÀÄß eÁjUÉƽ¸À®Ä ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÅÀ C£ÀĪÀÄw £ÉÃrzÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj DyðPÀ ºÉÆgÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄÄ vÀ£Àß DAvÀjPÀ ¸ÀA¥À£ÀÆä®UÀ½AzÀ ¨sÀj¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ JAzÀÄ vÀªÀÄUÉ w½¸À®Ä ¤zÉÃð²¸À®àlÖzÉÝãÉ."
The said order passed by the State Government has reached finality.
21. The grievance of the appellants/petitioners- employees is that they are entitled for the benefits of the 5th pay commission/revised pay scale with effect from 01.04.2006 to October 2010. Very curiously, the respondent No.1 passed one more Order dated 17.02.2011 fixing the revised pay scale from 01.07.2005 and monetary benefits from 01.11.2010. Admittedly, 50 the second order passed by the respondent No.1 was not approved by the State Government. The second Order was to implement the 5th pay commission. Respondent No.5 has not disputed the fact that all the petitioners are the employees of respondent No.1 and they have retired on 31.03.2012 i.e., after the 5th pay commission came into force on 01.04.2006 and that the petitioners that they are entitled to the benefits of 5th pay commission.
22. The contention of Sri R.S.Hegde, learned counsel for respondent No.1 is that the benefit to whichever the petitioners are entitled have already been paid. However, no documents are produced before the Court to prove that the respondent No.1 has extended the benefit of 5th pay commission or the revised pay scale to the petitioners from 01.04.2006 to October 2010.
23. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.1 while passing the resolution dated 19.08.2008 in subject 51 No.5, relied upon the Government Order dated 09.04.2007 and approved the revised pay scale to the government employees with effect from 01.07.2005 with monetary benefits from 01.04.2006 and increase of scales of pay payable in cash from 01.04.2007 and arrears for the period from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007 would be disbursed during the financial year 2008-09. It is specifically stated in the resolution that company had been extending to its employees the pay structure, grant of DA, HRA, CCA etc., on the pattern approved by the Government of Karnataka to its employees from time to time. The proposal to extend the revision of pay scale to the employees of the Company with effect from 1st August 2008 as contained in G.O. 9th April 2007 involves out flow on this account would be Rs.6.85 lakhs per month.
24. Though the Board was inclined to consider the above proposal sympathetically, however as it involves financial implication, the Board decided to seek 52 the approval of the Government in this regard. Accordingly, the government accorded the approval on 29.01.2011 subject to the condition that company bears the source of amount to be paid to the appellants.
25. By careful perusal of the resolution, it does not depict that Board of Directors of the company have not disagreed with the facilities provided by State Government to its employees. The resolution clearly indicates that they want to provide the 5th pay commission benefits to the employees on par with the Government employees on the pattern approved by the Government of Karnataka to its employees from time to time. The resolution does not depicts that if the persons have retired will not be entitled to 5th pay commission benefits. The resolution clearly depicts that they want to pay the benefits to the employees of respondent No.1 w.e.f. 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007 and thereby the amount would be disbursed during the financial year 2008-09 and company has been extending its 53 employees to pay structure, grant of DA, HRA, CCA etc., and the petitioners/appellants were in service on the relevant point of time when 5th pay commission came into force. Very curiously, when the said resolution was approved by the State Government, subsequently, the Order dated 17.02.2011 was passed fixing the revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.07.2005 and monetary benefits w.e.f. 01.11.2010. Even then petitioners are entitled to benefits as they have retired on 31.03.2012.
26. Though contention was raised by the learned Government Advocate and Sri R.S.Hegde learned counsel for the respondent No.1, that petitioners have not challenged the order dated 07.03.2011, learned senior counsel for the appellants contended that when the first respondent has granted the benefit of extension of 5th pay scale w.e.f. 01.04.2006 to October 2010, there was no need for the petitioners to challenge the subsequent order, as the first respondent granted the relief to the petitioners based on the resolution of the 54 Board of Directors dated 19.08.2008 in Subject No.5, as already stated supra, was approved by the State Government.
27. It is not the case of the first respondent that prior to the date of retirement of the appellants, the 5th pay commission was not in force and it came into force only after retirement accepted by the first respondent. It is not the case of the respondents that while taking voluntary retirement, the employees accepted to forego all the benefits or entitlement accrued before their retirement, including 5th pay commission.
28. It is an undisputed fact that the very respondent No.1 passed the resolution to extend the benefit of 5th pay commission rejected by the State Government on reconsideration of the second proposal dated 15/10/2010, the Statement Government approved the same on 29/01/2011 that is binding on respondent No.1. Though a subsequent order came to be passed by respondent No.1 on 17/02/2011 not approved by the 55 State Government on the earlier two occasions, respondent No.1 made proposal as to why before passing the third order dated 17/02/2011 after obtaining permission from the State Government clearly indicates that the subsequent order is passed only to dilute the rights of the appellants. Thereby, the appellants need not to challenge the order dated 17/02/2011 as the same was not approved by the State Government.
29. Though Sri R.Subramanya, learned Additional Advocate General for the State contended that the approval of the Government is subject to financial condition and capacity of the company and the Government order does not specify the effective date to implement 5th Pay Commission. We are surprised and shocked by the submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General in view of the relief sought by the appellants. The relief sought by the appellants is only against respondent No.1 and not against the State Government. When the Government Order dated 56 29/01/2011 specifies that, it is for respondent No.1 to give effect of 5th Pay Commission out of the source of respondent No.1, the fixing of the date specified by the State Government would not arise and in the proposal sought on 15/10/2010, respondent No.1 has not mentioned the cut-off date. It is also not in dispute that while passing the resolution, the Board of Directors on 28/08/2008 as per Annexure - M, Subject No.5 specified the effective date. Therefore, the Government specifying the effective date as contended by learned Advocate General would not arise. Though the learned Advocate General contended that Annexure-S dated 17/02/2011 not challenged by the appellants, we are not able to accept the arguments advanced as the Government has not approved the said Annexure-S and in the absence of approval of the Government, the said order dated 17/02/2011 cannot be enforced. Therefore, the question of challenge would not arise. Further, the submission made by learned Advocate General that once the appellants are retired on VRS, they cannot 57 agitate any benefit and as the appellants are employees as of Corporation, they cannot seek parity on par with the Government employees cannot be accepted. In the present case, it is not the case of the appellants that they are claiming parity on par with the Government employees. The main grievance of the appellants in the present appeal is that the before they retired on 31/03/2012, the 5th pay commission was introduced and the revised pay scale was effective from 01/04/2006 to October 2010. Therefore, the question of parity would not arise after opting VRS at the instance of respondent No.1, it cannot be said that they are not entitled for any benefit approved prior to their voluntary retirement on 31/03/2012. It is not the case of the State Government that the 5th pay commission came into force only on 31/03/2012, thereby the contention raised by the State Government on behalf of respondent No.1-Corporation cannot be accepted since no relief is sought against the State Government, in all fairness should not have 58 ventured on behalf of respondent No.1. Hence, the said contention cannot be accepted.
30. Sri R.S. Hegde, learned counsel for respondent No.1 relied upon the Government Order No.FD 8 SRP 2007, Bangalore dated 16/05/2011 Clause 11.2 stating that as regards extension of benefit of the revised scales of pay to the employees of local bodies (Town Panchayats/Town Municipalities/ City Municipal Corporations/City Corporations), the Urban Department shall take a decision having regard to the finances of the local bodies. The said contention cannot be accepted in view of the resolution passed by respondent No.1 on 19/08/2008 (Annexure - M) Subject No.5, where they want to adopt their employees, the Rules of 5th pay commission is applicable only to the local bodies and not corporation and it is not the case of respondent No.1 that it is also a local body. Thereby, the State in no way assists the case of the respondent No.1. 59
31. Learned single judge, while considering the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties has proceeded to dismiss the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.46871-46962/2012 and connected writ petitions mainly on the ground that by the Board o Resolution dated 05/03/2012 in which representation submitted by the employees union was considered and the board rejected the request of the employees union for extension of the said benefit due to financial position and paucity of funds. It has been further stated by respondent No.1 that it is not automatic to accept the pay commission's report in any Government undertaking companies. Even if it is accepted and benefit is extended, it is on the basis of the prevailing financial conditions of the company. The said finding of the leaned single Judge is contrary to the resolution passed by respondent No.1 as the learned Judge has not considered the resolution passed by respondent No.1 on 19/08/2008 (Annexure - M) Subject No.5 as already stated supra and approved by the State Government 60 dated 29/01/2011. Therefore, the said finding is erroneous.
32. Though the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 contend that the appellants are not entitled for the benefit as held by this Court in W.P.Nos.22671-22766/2012 that once the appellants/petitioners are extended the benefits available under the voluntary retirement scheme, any revision of pay, in the circumstances, the appellants/claimants are not entitled. Relying upon the dictum in A.K. Bindal stated supra stated that once the employees opt to retire under VRS and accept the benefits thereunder, their rights as employees come to an end and thereafter they cannot again assert their rights and re-agitate their claim for pay revision for pre- retirement period nor can they contend that they opted for VRS under compulsion. Learned single Judge has failed to notice that the appellants/petitioners are retired on the basis of Voluntary Retirement Scheme on 61 31/03/2012 and the 5th pay commission came into effect from 01/04/2006 to October 2010. Learned single Judge also failed to notice that the revision of benefits of 5th pay commission sought for by the appellants/petitioners is on the ground that during the existence of relationship of the appellants/petitioners with respondent No.1 as master and servant, the 5th pay commission was introduced and subsequent to their retirement on 31/03/2012, they are entitled for the benefit of 5th pay commission and the same has not been considered. Learned single Judge also could not consider the judgment dated 05/07/2012 passed by another learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.22671- 22766/2012, wherein at para Nos.5 and 6 it is held as under:
"5. The second grievance of the petitioners is that they are entitled for monetary benefits as per the resolutions of the respondent-Board dated 19.08.2008, 05.03.2012 and 31.03.2012. In this regard, the petitioners have submitted a representation on21.06.2012 as per Annexure-Z(10) requesting the 62 respondents to extend the monetary benefits as per Board resolution referred above. The respondents shall consider the representation of the petitioner as per Annexure-Z(10) in accordance with law and to extend the benefits admissible under law. With the above observations, the writ petitions are hereby disposed of.
6. Admittedly, in terms of Voluntary Retirement Scheme the compensation is not paid to the petitioners. On the face of it there is a delay. For the delay period the petitioners are requesting either to pay monthly salary or to pay interest. This request of the petitioners is to be considered by the respondents."
33. Admittedly, the order passed by the learned single Judge has reached finality. It is not the case that the learned single Judge has proceeded to pass the order dismissing the claim of the appellants/petitioners on the assumption that the scheme prevailing by then and subsequent revision of pay, the appellants/petitioners are not entitled. Accordingly, the writ petitions were dismissed ignoring the fact that the 63 scheme of 5th pay commission effective from 01/04/2006 and as on that date, the appellants/petitioners were in service and retired only on 31/03/2012. Therefore, learned single Judge erroneously dismissed the writ petition without looking into the prayer sought and 5th pay commission came into force as well as appellants/petitioners retired only on 31/03/2012, thereby, the learned single Judge has not justified in dismissing the petition filed by the appellants/petitioners.
34. The judgment relied upon by the learned Advocate General in the case of A.K. Bindal, it is a case where the public sector undertakings remain distinct from the Government. It is well settled that the employees of Government company are not government servants they have absolutely no legal right to claim that government should pay their salary or that the additional expenditure incurred on account of revision of their pay scale, while fixing the wage structure, the 64 economic viability or the financial capacity of the employer is an important factor which cannot be ignored. In the said case, the employees sought equity on the basis of the Government employees as they are entitled for additional pay. Admittedly, it is not the case of respondent No.1 that 5th pay commission does not apply to the employees of respondent No.1/company and that the employees are not entitled for 5th pay commission. If that is the case, respondent No.1, then there was no necessity for respondent No.1 to pass the resolution dated 19/08/2008 (Annexure - M), Subject No.5 and the State Government should not have approved the proposal dated 15/10/2010 on 29/01/2011 which clearly indicates that both respondent No.1 and the State Government were conscious of the application of 5th pay commission to the employees of respondent No.1, thereby the dictum of the Apex Court does not apply to the present facts and circumstances of the case.
65
35. Learned Additional Advocate General relied upon the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & others vs. Ilmodevi & others [2021 SCC Online SC 899] wherein at para Nos.27 and 28 it is held as under:
"27. In the case of Daya Lal (supra) in paragraph 12, it is observed and held as under:
"12. We may at the outset refer to the following well-settled principles relating to regularisation and parity in pay, relevant in the context of these appeals:
(i) The High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and Courts should not issue a direction for regularisation of services of an employee which would be violative of the 66 constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularised, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularised.
(ii) Mere continuation of service by a temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service, as such service would be "litigious employment". Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularisation, if he is not working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of regularisation in the absence of a legal right.
(iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularisation with a cut-off date (that is a scheme providing that persons who had put in a specified number of years of service and continuing in employment as on the cut-off 67 date), it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent to the cut-off date, to claim or contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut-off date or seek a direction for framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut-off dates.
(iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularisation as they are not working against any sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance of part-time temporary employees.
(v) Part-time temporary employees in government-run institutions cannot claim
parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can employees in private employment, even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with government employees.
The right to claim a particular salary against the State must arise under a contract or under a statute.
[See State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), [(2006) 4 SCC 1], M. Raja v. CEERI Educational Society, [(2006) 12 SCC 636), S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand, [(2007) 8 68 SCC 279], Kurukshetra Central Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Mehar Chand, [(2007) 15 SCC 680] and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand, [(2008) 10 SCC 1.]
28. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularization as they are not working against any sanctioned post and there cannot be any permanent continuance of part-time temporary employees as held. Part-time temporary employees in a Government run institution cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work."
36. Admittedly, in the present case, it is not the case of the appellants/petitioners that the part- time employees after seeking regularisation, they are seeking the principles of equal pay for equal work on par with the Government employees. In the present case it is the specific case of the appellants/petitioners that they were employees of respondent No.1/ Corporation and the same is not disputed by respondent No.1, but the 69 case of the appellants was that they were forced to take voluntary retirement and accordingly have retired on 31/03/2012 and that they are claiming only to pay 5th pay commission benefits in terms of the resolution passed by respondent No.1/Corporation as per Annexure
- M dated 19/08/2008 Subject No.5 and the same has been approved by the State Government. Thereby, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
37. Sri Hegde, learned counsel for respondent No.1 relied upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Workmen represented by Secretary vs. Reptakos Brett & Co. Ltd., & another [(1992)1 SCC 290] in para No.28, it is held as under:
"28. The ratio which emerges from the judgments of this Court is that the management can revise the wage structure to the prejudice of the workmen in a case where due to financial stringency it is unable to bear the burden of the existing wage. But in an industry or employment where the wage structure is at the level of 70 minimum wage, no such revision at all, is permissible not even on the ground of financial stringency. It is, therefore, for the management which is seeking restructuring of DA scheme to the disadvantage of the workmen to prove to the satisfaction of the tribunal that the wage structure in the industry concerned is well above minimum level and the management is financially not in a position to bear the burden of the existing wage structure."
To the effect that the ratio which emerges from the judgments of this Court is that the management can revise the wage structure to the prejudice of the workmen in a case where due to financial stringency it is unable to bear the burden of the existing wage. But in an industry or employment where the wage structure is at the level of minimum wage, no such revision at all, is permissible not even on the ground of financial stringency. It is, therefore, for the management, which is seeking restructuring of DA scheme to the disadvantage of the workmen to prove to the satisfaction of the tribunal that the wage-structure in the 71 industry concerned is well above minimum level and the management is financially not in a position to bear the burden of the existing wage structure. In the present case, the resolution passed by respondent No.1 on 19/08/2008 to give effect to the 5th pay commission. Accordingly, the proposal made on 15/10/2010 stating that they will bear the expenses based on the approval of the State Government on 29/01/2011. Thereby, the said judgment with regard to restructure of the DA scheme to the disadvantage of the workmen to prove to the satisfaction of the tribunal that the wage-structure in the industry concerned is well above minimum level and the management is financially not in a position to bear the burden of the existing wage structure has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
38. In another judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 in the case of Hindustan Antibiotics vs. The Workmen [AIR 1967 72 SC 948] at para No.21 it is held to the effect that service conditions of the employees in public sector undertakings were also not similar to those of Government employees; there was no security of service; the fundamental rules did not apply to them; there was no constitutional protection; there was no pension; they were covered by standing orders; their service conditions were more similar to those of employees in the private sector than those in Government departments. Admittedly, in the present case, the appellants/petitioners are regular employees of respondent No.1/Corporation and they were permitted to retire on the basis of the voluntary retirement scheme introduced by the State Government as respondent No.1 was under the financial loss and while they were in service, the 5th pay commission came into force and thereafter they retired only on 31/03/2012. Now the grievance of the petitioners is that they are entitled to the revision of 5th pay commission with effect from 01/04/2006 to October 73 2010. Though a resolution was passed, now respondent No.1/Corporation denied on the fact that respondent No.1 had approved the proposal.
39. Though Sri R. Subramanya, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that respondent No.1 infact, borrowed a short loan from the State Government, it is not a ground to deny, the persons who were working and permitted to retire voluntarily, the benefit if they are really entitled in accordance with law. Once the resolution passed by respondent No.1 is approved by the State Government, it is binding on respondent No.1/ Corporation to ensure that the payment of 5th pay commission which came into force before the appellants were retired and that they are not entitled for 5th pay commission as they have given an undertaking that they will not claim any revision of pay scales in view of 5th pay commission during the existence of the relationship of respondent No.1/Corporation and the employees. The said 74 judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
40. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has relied upon another judgment in the case of Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Voluntarily Retired Employees Welfare Association and others vs. State of Karnataka, Department of Agriculture, Rep. by its Secretary and another [ILR 2011 Kar. 2431], wherein it is held that the revision of pay scale is not applicable to the persons who are retired under the voluntary retirement scheme and such persons are not entitled for the benefit of specific revision pay scale and the decision taken by the competent authority. In the present case, the petitioners are not taking any retrospective revision of pay in view of the 5th pay commission nor are they claiming that they are entitled for the revision of pay scales subsequent to the retirement. In the absence of the same, the said 75 judgment also has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
41. It is well settled principle of law that every public office is a trustee of the society and infact, in all facets of public administration, every public servant has to exhibit honesty, integrity, sincerity and faithfulness in implementation of the political, social, economic and constitutional policies to integrate the nation, to achieve excellence and efficiency in the public administration. A public servant entrusted with duty and power to implement constitutional policy under Articles 14, 21 and 300 of the Constitution of India and all inter-related directive principles of state policy under the Constitution, should exhibit transparency in implementation and of accountable for due effectuation of constitutional goals. Thereby, respondent No.1 cannot discriminate the appellants/petitioners in denying the 5th pay commission which was introduced prior to the 76 retirement of the appellants/petitioners on 31/03/2012 and the same was approved by the State Government.
42. For the foregoing reasons, point No.1 raised in the present appeals is answered in the affirmative holding that the appellants have made out a case for grant of 5th pay commission with effect from 01/04/2006 to October 2010 in view of the resolution passed by respondent No.1 in the 187th Board Meeting held on 19/08/2008 as per Annexure - M Subject No.5 has been approved by the State Government on 29/01/2011. Consequently, point No.2 is also answered in the affirmative holding that the appellants have made out a case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge and the appellants/petitioners are entitled for the relief sought for.
43. In view of the above, we pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ appeals filed by the appellants/petitioners are allowed.77
(ii) The impugned order dated 12/09/2013 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.46871-46962/2012 C/w. Writ Petitions Nos.47081-47170/2012 is hereby set aside
(iii) Endorsement Annexure - Z15 dated 14/08/2012 issued by respondent No.1 is hereby quashed.
(iv) The writ of mandamus issued by respondent .No.1 to the extent of benefit of 5th pay commission revised pay scale with effect from 01/04/2006 to October 2010, the appellants/petitioners are entitled for all the benefits including gratuity in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Paragraph No. 1 to 15 S* 16 to 27 kcm 28 to 43 S* CT-RM