Karnataka High Court
Sri S Viswanatha vs Karnataka Power Transmission ... on 7 March, 2013
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
ON THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NO.6040 OF 2006(S-R)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.370 OF 2007(L-PG)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.3471 OF 2007(S-R)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.659 OF 2006(S-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.21924 OF 2005(S-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.5439 OF 2007(S-R)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.1031 OF 2007(S-R)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.17603 OF 2006(S-RES)
WP.NO.6040/2006:
BETWEEN:
SRI S.VISWANATHA
S/O LATE R.SHANKARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
JUNIOR ENGINEER(ELEC.)-RETIRED,
K.P.T.C. LTD.,
R/AT#11, 1ST CROSS, P.F.LAYOUT,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 040. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI G.V.SUDHAKAR & SRI B.PRAMOD, ADVOCATES)
2
AND:
1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
(EARLIER KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD)
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BANGALORE - 560 009
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER (ADMN. & HRD)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BANGALORE - 560 009.
3. THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND CHIEF
ACCOUNTS OFFICER
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSIMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BANGALORE - 560 009 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NAGANAND, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI
B.C.PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2
R1 & R3-SERVED)
*****
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 17.11.2003 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR
AS IT RESTRICTS THE BENEFITS OF PAYMENT OF
ENHANCED AMOUNT OF GRATUITY TO THE EMPLOYEES
WHO CEASE TO BE IN SERVICE ON ACCOUNT OF
RETIREMENT/DEATH ON OR AFTER 18.10.2003 AS
WHOLLY ILLEGAL, WITHOUT JURISDICTION,
ARBITRARY,CONTRARY TO THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY
3
ACT, 1972 AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
WP.NO.370/2007:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI MARIGOWDA
RETIRED EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KPTCL
S/O LATE BORAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
#17, I CROSS, AMARJYOTHI NAGARA,
NAGARBHAVI ROAD,
BANGALORE.
2. SRI N.G.ESHWARAPPA
S/O N.GANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
RETIRED ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KPTCL
#776, II CROSS, V MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI B.C.RAJEEVA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
KAVERI BHAVAN, KG ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 009
REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL MANAGER.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE.
3. DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR &
4
SOCIAL WELFARE,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE.
AMENDMENT CARRIED AS PER ORDER DATED 9.3.2009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.NAGANAND, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI
B.C.PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI RAGHAVENDRA G.GAYATHRI, AGP FOR R2 & R3)
****
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
BOARD ORDER DATED 17.11.2003 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED
BY THE RESPONDENT, IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO,
RESTRICTING THE BENEFIT OF PAYMENT OF THE
ENHANCED GRATUITY ONLY TO THOSE EMPLOYEES
RETIRING/DYING ON FOR AFTER 18.10.2003 AND
CONSEQUENTLY.
WP.NO.3471/2007:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI G KRISHNAPPA
S/O GOPALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
RETD.AEE(ELECL.)
NO.386/A, 14TH MAIN ROAD
M.R.C.R. VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-40
2. KRISHNAPPA S/O HANUMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 EYARS
5
RETIRED A.O
NO.3034, 14TH 'A' MAIN ROAD
R.P.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR II STAGE
BANGALORE-40
3. SHIVARAMAIAH
S/O NEERA GUNDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RETIRED SENIOR ASSISTANT
NO.3086/7, 8TH 'C' CROSS
14TH 'B' MAIN ROAD, RPC LAYOUT
VIJAYANAGAR II STAGE, BANGALORE-40
4. B ANJANAPPA S/O BYRANNA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RETD.SENIOR ASSISTANT
NO.255, 3RD 'B' BLOCK, III STAGE
II BLOCK, BASAVESWARANAGAR
BANGALORE-79
5. B V VARADARAJ
S/O LATE VENKATARAM
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
NO.184, 'SRI RAMA KRUPA',
IV 'B' MAIN, III BLOCK
III STAGE, BASAVESWARANAGAR
BANGALORE-79
6. M SUBBARAMAIAH S/O MILLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RETD.ASST.ENGINEER
NO.2259, "MOUNA NILAYA",
IST CROSS, MUNESWARA TEMPLE STREET
KARIYANAPALYA, BANGALORE-84
7. K S LAKSHMANAGOWDA
S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA
6
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RETD.JUNIOR ENGINEER(ELECL.,)
NO.14/188, III CROSS
KURUBARAHALLI
BANGALORE-86
8. NANJAPPA
S/O LATE BORAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RETD.MECHANIC GRADE-I
NO.609, 8TH MAIN ROAD
RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-40
9. BORAIAH S/O NANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RETD.L.M. GRADE-I
NO.786, NGOS COLONY, BEHIND GOVERNMENT
SCHOOL, KAMALANAGAR
BANGALORE-79
10. SIDDARAMAIAH S/O MUGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RETD.L.M. GRADE-II
NO.88, 8TH MAIN, DEVARAJ URS NAGAR
OLD GUDDADAHALLI
BANGALORE-26
11. GOWDAIAH S/O KEMPANNA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
RETD.L.M. GRADE-II
NO.23, 2ND CROSS,INDIRANAGAR
WEST OF CHORD ROAD
BANGALORE-10
12. M KRISHNA
S/O. LATE MUTHU
7
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RETIRED DRIVER
NO.26 KRISHNAPPA BUILDING
OPPOSITE MASJID, 4TH CROSS
GIDDAPPA BLOCK, R.T. NAGAR, BANGALORE-32
13. AMEER JAN
S/O.HUSMAN KHAN
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RETD L.M. GRADE - I
NO.3, IST MAIN II STAGE
KAVERI NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560079.
14. GUNDAPPA
S/O. LATE GIRIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RETD MECHANIC GRADE - II
NO.377, II STAGE, IST CROSS
BASAVESHWARANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560079
15. B S ANAND RAO
S/O. LATE B.A. SRINIVAS RAO
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RETD MECHANIC GRADE - I
NO.49, 11TH CROSS, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR
ITTUMUDU, BSK III STAGE
BANGALORE - 560085
16. AHMED BAIG
S/O. LATE GAFAR BAIG
AGED ABOTU 59 YEARS
RETIRED DRIVER
NO.148, BEHIND NOORI MASJID
HENNUR CROSS, HRBR LAYOUT
KALYAN NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 043
8
17. K APPAJI
S/O. KANDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
RETD JUNIOR ENGINER (ELECL)
NO.132, 5TH MAIN , 6TH CROSS
VIJAYANAGAR II STAGE
BANGALORE - 560040.
18. S KUMARASWAMY
S/O. LATE K.K. SHYAMARAO
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RETD MECHANIC GRADE-I
NO.92, 'D' IST MAIN ROAD
PRAKRUTHI LAYOUT
KALYAN NAGAR POST, HENNUR, BANGALORE
19. C T RAMAKRISHNAIAH
S/O. THIRUMALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RETD S.K. GRADE - II
NO.211, 11TH MAIN ROAD
IST CROSS, HANUMANTHANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 019.
20. V HUCHAVEERAIAH
S/O. CAGGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RETD ASST ENGINEER
NO.267, II CROSS, 7TH BLOCK
KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE - 560095.
21. R KESHAVAMURTHY
S/O. K RAGHAVENDRA RAO
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
RETD S.E. (ELECL)
NO.447/32, 6TH MAIN ROAD
9
'A' BLOCK, MILK COLONY
II STAGE, BANGALORE - 55
22. MALLAIAH
S/O. LATE CHENNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RETD L.M. GRADE - II
NO.79, 9TH MAIN ROAD
KAMAKSHIPALYA
BANGALORE - 79.
23. B T SRINIVASVAIAH
S/O THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YRS
RETD JUNIOR ENGINEER (ELECL)
NO 169, 7 B MAIN
III STAGE, 4 BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGAR
BANGALORE 79
24. S P KUMAR
S/O G SAMUEL
RETIRED ASSISTANT
NO 474, I B STAGE
MATHIKERE, BANGALORE 54
25. H N VISHWANNA
S/O NARASIMHA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 60 YRS
RETIRED ASSISTANT, NO 997
I STAGE, I PHASE
17 CROSS, CHANDRA LAYOUT
BANGALORE 72
26. T VENKATESH
S/O THIRUMALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YRS
RETD SENIOR ASSISTANT
10
NO 218, RAILWAY LAYOUT
NANDINI LAYOUT, 4 BLOCK
RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, BANGALORE 96
27. S A SARDAR
S/O LATE MOHAMMED SAB
AGED ABOUT 59 YRS
RETD STORE ASST GRADE II
NO 14, COFFEE BOARD
SHANPURE ROAD, BANGALORE 45
28. ANANDA MURTHY
S/O V RUDRAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 59 YRS
RETIRED ASSISTANT
9 MAIN, SRINIVAS NAGAR
BANGALORE 50
29. A S GANAPATHI RAO
S/O A ANANTHA RAO
RETD JUNIOR ENGINEER ELECL
NO 3816/9/2, 11 CROSS
NEW 5 CROSS, GAYATHRI NAGAR
BANGALORE 21
30. Y H VENKATARANGA NAIK
S/O HANUMANTH NAIK
AGED ABOUT 63 YRS
RETD AEE ELECL, NO 386, 6 MAIN
III BLOCK, III STAGE
BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BANGALORE 79
31. S P NANJUNDAIAH
S/O PAPEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 63 YRS
NO6, SRI LAKSHMI
III BLOCK, III CROSS
11
III STAGE, BASAVESHWARANAGAR
BANGALORE 79
32. H UMAPATHI
S/O LATE T HONNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YRS
NO 204, 7 C MAIN, I BLOCK
HBR LAYOUT
KALYAN NAGAR, BANGALORE 43
33. C N VENUGOPAL
S/O C N NARAYANA SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 64 YRS
RETD JE ELECL
NO 17/5, VIVEK NAGAR
NAGER JIND ROAD, BANGALORE 33
34. N BHAGYALAKSHMI
W/O LATE T M SAMANTHA
AGED ABOUT 59 YRS,RETD. JUNIOR ASST.
NO 4095, AKSHAYA
I MAIN, B BLOCK
II STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE 21
35. G M KUMARASWAMY ARADHYA
S/O G M MUDDAHANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YERAS,
RETD. SENIOR ASST.,
NO.1004, 27TH CROSS,
SST EXTENSION,
TUMKUR.
36. C RAMULU S/O C ERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YERAS,
RETD. METER READER,
NO.12, 1ST MAIN, 5TH CROSS,
12
TENT ROAD, SANJEEVINI NAGAR,
BANGALORE 72
37. K KRISHNA
S/O B L KUPPASWAMY
AGED AOBUT 61 YEARS,
NO.103, 5TH CROSS,
ANJANEYA GARDEN NEW LAYOUT,
CHAMARAJPET
MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE 18
38. CHANNAIAH
S/O LINGAIAH
AGED AOBUT 61 YEARS,
RETD. MECHANIC GRADE I,
NO.58, II CROSS,
NANJAPPA BLOCK,
K.G.NAGAR, BANGALORE 19.
39. H R PRALADHA RAO
S/O H.R.RAMA RAO
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RETD. JUNIOR ASST.
NO.120, MANJUSREE KRUPA,
5TH AMIN ROAD, I CROSS,
R.M.V. EXTENSION, BANGALORE 94.
40. H C VIJAYAKUMAR
S/O LATE CHANNABASAPPA
AGEDA BOUT 59 YERAS,
RETD. SENIOR ASST.
NO.28, II MAIN,
AECS III STAGE,
SANJAY NAGAR, BANGALORE 94.
41. K NAGARAJA
S/O KASHI BHALL
13
AGED ABOUT 60 YERAS,
RETD. SENIOR ASST.
NO.27, III 'M' MAIN ROAD,
AGB COLONY, 1ST STAGE,
BANGALORE 86.
42. H RAMESH
S/O HUCHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YERAS,
RETD. SENIOR ASST.
NO.9, 16THC ROSS,
8TH MAIN, BANDAPPA GARDEN,
MATHIKERE, BANGALORE 54.
43. K DEVEGOWDA
S/O KALASE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 61 YERAS,
RETD. ASSISTANT,
NO.37, 9TH MAIN ROAD,
SHIVANAGAR RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE 10
44. H B ANASUYA
W/O MAHESH CHANDRA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 59 EYRAS,
RETD. ASSISTANT,
NO.35, 9TH CROSS,
S.P.EXTENSION, MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE 3.
45. M C ANANDA KUMAR
S/O LATE M.R.CHIKKCHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RETD. JUNIOR ASSISTANT,
NO.111/1 22ND MAIN ROAD,
GOVINDARAJA NAGAR,
BANGALORE 40.
14
46. C R HALAPPA S/O REVANNA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RETD. ASSISTANT
NO.844, 12TH 'B' MAIN
5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE-10
47. KRISHNE GOWDA S/O SINGRE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RETD. JUNIOR ASSISTANT
NO.385, 7TH CROSS
II BLOCK, KALYAN NAGAR
NAGARBHAVI
BANGALORE-72
48. H S RAGHU S/O LATE H S SRINIVASACHARI
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RETD. SENIOR ASSISTNT
NO.100, III CROSS
GKK LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-40
49. C S KRISHNAMURTHY S/O SAMPANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RETD. ASSISTANT
NO.128, II CROSS
GURUSWAMY LAYOUT
BEHIND CLUB, MYSORE ROAD
BANGALORE-39
50. SMT NAGARAJAMMA D/O HANUMANTHAPP
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
RETD. SENIOR ASSISTANT
NO.257, IST MAIN
VISVESWARAIAH LAYOUT
BANDE MUTT ROAD
KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN, B'LORE-60
15
51. KALEEMULLA S/O SYED ALI
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RETD. DRIVER
NO.79, 9TH CROSS
GANGONDANAHALLI
BANGALORE-39
52. K M JAYAMMA W/O K H RANGASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
RETD. SENIOR ASSISTANT
NO.41, 5TH CROSS, L.N.PURAM
SRIRAMPURAM POST
BANGALORE-21
53. HANUMAIAH S/O HUCHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
RETD. LINEMAN GRADE-II
NO.32, MINI KASHI NAGAR
III MAIN ROAD
BASAVESHWARANAGAR
BANGALORE-79
54. K MADAIAH S/O KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
RETD. LINEMAN GRADE-II
NO.375, 8TH CROSS
INDUSTRIAL TOWN RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE-44
55. SATTAR KHAN S/O HAMEEB KHAN
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RETD. ASST. ENGINEER
NO.323, III 'A' CROSS
NAVEED MANZIL
VIJAYA BANK COLON EXTENSION
DODDA BANASWADI, BANGALORE
16
56. M C MADEGOWDA S/O MADEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RETD.ASSISTANT
NO.137/14, 34TH CROSS
RAJAJINAGAR II BLOCK
BANGALORE-10
57. SIDDA BYRAPPA S/O BYRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
RETD. STORE KEEPER
NO.284 BYRAVESHWARA NILAYA
RAGHAVENDRA KRUPA
RAJESHWARI NAGAR MAIN ROAD
PENYA POST, LAGGERE B'LORE-58
58. K N VASUDEVA MURTHY S/O K NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RETD. METER READER
NO.192/2, IST MAIN ROAD
8TH CROSS, CHAMARAJPET
BANGALORE-18
59. MARIYAPPA
S/O JOSEPH
AGED ABOUT 63 YRS
RETD DRIVER
NO.44 HOSA BLOCK
BYTARAYANAPURA
BANGALORE 26
60. BORAIAH
S/O SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YRS
RETD LINE MAN GRADE II
NO.403 III STAGE 4TH MAIN
J C NAGAR KAVERI WATER TQNK
BASAVESHWARA NAGAR BANGALORE 79
17
61. SMT SATHYLAKSHMI
W/O M.S.SUBBARAYA GUPTA
AGED ABOUT 60 YRS
RETD SENIOR ASSISTANT
NO.829/17 9TH MAIN RPC LAYOUT
BANGALORE 40
62. H T SHIVARAJU
S/O LATE DODDA THAMMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 60 YRS
RETD ASSISTANT
NO.78 CHOWDESHWARI NILAYA
ASHWATH NAGAR , SANJAY NAGAR POST
BANGALORE 94
63. M PILLAIAH
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YRS
RETD SENIOR ASSISTANT
NO.21 5TH MAIN II CROSS
KEB LAYOUT SANJAY NAGAR
BANGALORE 94
64. A N RAMANNA
S/O NANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 63 YRS
RETD SENIOR ASSISTANT
NO.9 13TH B CROSS
AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI
MAGADI ROAD BANGALORE 79
65. B P PRAKASH NARAYANA
S/O H PUTTANNA
AGED ABOUT 60 YRS
RETD ASSISTANT
NO.12 ANUGRAHA III MAIN
18
7TH CROSS BRINDAVAN NAGAR
BANGALORE 54
66. K GAJANANA
S/O C KESHAVA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 60 YRS
RETD ASSISTANT
NO.1050 ADRASHA LAYOUT
7TH CROSS BASAVESHWARA NAGAR
BANGALORE 79
67. DORESWAMY
S/O THIRUVENGADAM
AGED ABOUT 63 YRS
RETD LINEMAN GRADE II
NO.108 III CROSS
BHASHYAM NAGAR
BANGALORE 21
68. SHAIK MAHABOOB
S/O LATE FAKRUDDIN
AGED ABOUT 59 YRS
RETD LINE MAN GRADE II
NO.1201 13TH MAIN
5TH CROSS PRAKSH NAGAR
BANGALORE 21
69. BYRAPPA
S/O LATE CHIKKAIAH
AGED ABOUT 64 YRS
RETD LINEMAN GRADE II
NO.13/1 5TH A MAIN
IST CROSS MUNIKARIYAPPA
COMPOUND BANGALORE 79
70. V SHADEVA
S/O VEERASWAMY
19
AGED ABOUT 63 YRS
RETD LINE MAN GRADE I
NO.29 IST CROSS
BHASHYAM NAGAR , SRIRAMPURAM
BANGALORE 21
71. C LINGAIAH
S/O LATE CHANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YRS
RETD JUNIOR ASSISTANT
NO.2805/A13 12TH MAIN ROAD
II CROSS D BLOCK
II STAGE RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE 10
72. K M RAMAKRISHNAIAH
S/O MUDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YRS
RETD DAFTRY
NO.213/14 KAVERI NAGAR
KARNATAKA LAYOUT II STAGE
BANGALORE 79
73. R PUTTARAJU
S/O RACHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
RETD. STORE ASSISTANT,
NO 118, 6TH CROSS
III MAIN, C BLOCK
J.P NAGAR MYSORE 8
74. K NANJUNDA SWAMY
S/O KESHAVA BHATTA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RETD ASSISTANT
NO 350, 6TH CROSS
7TH A MAIN RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR
II STAGE, BANGALORE 40
20
75. ATTAPPA
S/O LATE MOODLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
RETD DRIVER
NO 482, GANESHA TEMPLE ROAD
6TH CROSS, RAJAGOPAL NAGAR, PEENYA
II PHASE, BANGALORE 58
76. S NATARAJA
S/O SRINIVASA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEAS
RETD. CASHIER,
NMO 243, 8TH MAIN
4TH BLOCK NANDINI LAYOUT
BANGALORE 96 ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI M R SHAILENDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION
LTD
CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD
BANGALORE 560 009
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI NAGANAND, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI B C
PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)
*****
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE BOARD ORDER DATED 17.11.2003 ANNEXURE A AND
NOTIFICATION DATED 22.11.2003 ANNEXURE B PASSED
BY THE RESPONDENT IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO
21
RESTRICTING THE BENEFIT OF PAYMENT OF THE
ENHANCED GRATUITY ONLY TO THOSE EMPLOYEES
RETIRING/DYING ON OR AFTER 18.10.2003 AND
CONSEQUENTIALLY.
WP.NO.659/2006:
BETWEEN:
SRI NAGABASAVAIAH
S/O LATE SANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.4, MAHESHWARI NILAYA
4TH A MAIN ROAD, 5TH MAIN ROAD,
BYRAVESHWARANAGAR
NAGARBHAVI MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAMOD R.KATHAVE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
CAUVERY BHAVAN
BANGALORE - 560 009
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. GENERAL MANAGER
(ADMINISTRATION & HRD)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BANGALORE - 560 009.
...RESPONDENTS
22
(BY SRI NAGANAND, SR.COUNEL FOR SRI
B.C.PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 17.11.2003 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR
AS IT RESTRICTS THE BENEFITS OF PAYMENT OF
ENHANCED AMOUNT OF GRATUITY TO THE EMPLOYEES
WHO CEASE TO BE IN SERVICE ON ACCOUNT OF
RETIREMENT/DEATH ON OR AFTER 18.10.2003.
WP.NO.21924/2005:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI M.SUDHINDRA KUMAR
RETIRED SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
KPTCL
S/O K.R MADHAVA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
1555/63, 5TH CROSS,
BSK IST STAGE, 2ND BLOCK
BANGALORE - 560 050.
2. SRI H.N.KRISHNA SASTRY
S/O HR.NARAYANASASTRY
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
RETIRED ACCOUNTS OFFICER
KPTCL
NO.3, 13TH CROSS,
ATHIMABBE ROAD,
BSK 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 050.
3. SRI B.RAJJEVALACHANAM
S/O BHASKARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
RETIRED ACCOUNTS OFFICER, KPTCL
23
421, 5TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN, RPC LAYOUT,
BANGALORE - 560 050.
4. SRI R.SUBRAMANYA
S/O N.RAMAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RETIRED ACCOUNTS OFFICER, KPTCL
114/4, 4TH MAIN, BETWEEN 9TH & 10TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE - 03.
5. S.CHANDRASHEKARAIAH
S/O S.SADASIVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARTS
RETIRED ACCOUNTS OFFICER, KPTCL
427, 8TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS, RPC LAYOUT,
VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 40.
6. SRI B.S.SEHADRI
S/O C.SUBBUKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RETIRED SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,KPTCL
NO.157, 9TH MAIN, BIKASIPURA,
S.PURA POST, BANGALORE - 61
7. SRI M.SOMASUNDARA RAO
S/O M.SURYANARAYANA RAO
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
RETIRED SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KPTCL
160/161, NEAR RKMERS CHANNASANDRA
BANGALORE - 560 061.
8. SRI K.HIRIYANAIAH
S/O K.ANANTHARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RETIRED CONTROLLER OF ACCOUNTS,
KPTCL
145/1, 5TH > A=MAIN, 3RD BLOCK,
THYAGARAJANAGAR,
24
BANGALORE - 560 028.
9. SRI N.VENUGOPALACHARY
S/O C.M NANJUNDACHAR
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RETIRED ACCOUNTS OFFICER, KPTCL
478, 1ST H CROSS, 6TH BLOCK,
BSK 3RD STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 085.
10. SRI M.RAMACHANDRA KAMATH
S/O RAGHAVENDRA KAMATH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RETIRED ACCOUNTS OFFICER, KPTCL
329, 17TH MAIN, MC LAYOUT,
VIJAYNAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 040.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI N.S.SANJAY GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
KAVERI BHAVAN, KG ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 009
REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL MANAGER.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE.
3. DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR &
SOCIAL WELFARE,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
25
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE.
AMENDMENT CARRIED AS PER ORDER DATED 9.3.2009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.NAGANAND, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI
B.C.PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI RAGHAVENDRA G.GAYATHRI, AGP FOR R2 & R3)
****
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE BOARD ORDER DATED 17.11.2003 VIDE ANNEXURE-A
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT, IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES
TO RESTRICTING THE BENEFIT OF PAYMENT OF THE
ENHANCED GRATUITY ONLY TO THOSE EMPLOYEES
RETIRING/DYING IN OR AFTER 18.10.2003 AND
CONSEQUENTIALLY.
WP.NO.5439/2007:
BETWEEN:
1. B.MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
S/O BASAVANNA,
EARLIER WORKING AS EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER (ELCL.)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED, BANGALORE
SINCE RETIRED AND RESIDING AT
NO.19, 1ST FLOOR, 17TH CROSS,
MRCR EXTENSION, VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 040.
2. N.HANUMAIAH
26
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
S/O NARASIMHAIAH,
EARLIER WORKING AS EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER (ELCL.)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED, BANGALORE
SINCE RETIRED AND RESIDING AT
NO.547, 1 BLOCK, III STAGE
BASAVESWARANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 079.
3. VEERAKEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
S/O YALAKAPPA
EARLIER WORKING AS EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER (ELCL.)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED, BANGALORE
SINCE RETIRED AND RESIDING AT
NO.242/H, 19TH CROSS, 21ST MAIN,
VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 40.
4. R.C.SOMASHEKARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
S/O CHANDRAIAH
EARLIER WORKING AS EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER (ELCL.)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED, BANGALORE
SINCE RETIRED AND RESIDING AT
NO.3370, 2ND CROSS, 7TH MAIN ROAD,
RPC LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 40.
5. S.P.INDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
S/O PRABHUSWAMY
EARLIER WORKING AS EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER (ELCL.)
27
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED, BANGALORE
SINCE RETIRED AND RESIDING AT
NO.30, 3RD CROSS, JAYANAGAR,
MYSORE - 570 014.
6. C.SIDDALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
S/O C.SAVANDAPPA
EARLIER WORKING AS EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER (ELCL.)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED, BANGALORE
SINCE RETIRED AND RESIDING AT
NO.1050/A, 18TH 'A' MAIN,
V BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 10.
7. MARI GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
S/O LATE LINGE GOWDA
EARLIER WORKING AS EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER (ELCL.)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED, BANGALORE
SINCE RETIRED AND RESIDING AT
NO.38, 15TH CROSS, 4TH PHASE,
J.P.NAGAR, BANGALORE - 78.
8. JAVARE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
S/O LATE ARASE GOWDA
EARLIER WORKING AS EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER (ELCL.)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED, BANGALORE
SINCE RETIRED AND RESIDING AT
NO.6049, HEMANILAYA D.R.
28
KARIGOWDA VATARA, B.M.ROAD,
HASSAN - 573 201.
9. B.C.SOMASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
S/O LATE CHANNAVEERA SETTY
EARLIER WORKING AS EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER (ELCL.)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED, BANGALORE
SINCE RETIRED AND RESIDING AT
NO.317, II F MAIN, 11TH BLOCK,
NAGARABHAVI II STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 072.
10. BYRANNA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
S/O LATE BYRANNA
EARLIER WORKING AS ASST.
ENGINEER (ELCL.)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED, BANGALORE
SINCE RETIRED AND RESIDING AT
NO.424, 6TH MAIN, 12TH 'B' CROSS,
W.C.R. II STAGE, BANGALORE - 86.
11. B.EARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
S/O BHEEMAIAH
EARLIER WORKING AS EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER (ELCL.)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED, BANGALORE
SINCE RETIRED AND RESIDING AT
NO.108, 2ND STAGE, BINNY LAYOUT,
VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 40.
...PETITIONERS
29
(BY SRI P.S.RAJA GOPAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED, HEAD OFFIC,E
CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE - 09
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT,
LABOUT DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDINGS,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NAGANAND, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI
B.C.PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTIFICATION DATED 21.11.1988 UNDER ANNEXURE-D
TO THE WRIT PETITION ISSUED BYTHE R2.
WP.NO.1031/2007:
BETWEEN:
C.P.ABDUL SATTAR
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
S/O LATE AHMED, EARLIER WORKING AS
DRIVER GRADE-II, AT KARNATAKA POWER
TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED
AT THE OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) BESCOM,
KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 034
SINCE RETIRED AND RESIDING AT NO.39
30
IBRAHIM SAHEB STREET, 4TH CROSS,
RASHEEDNAGAR, ARABIC COLLEGE POST,
BANGALORE - 45. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI P.S.RAJA GOPAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED, HEAD OFFIC,E
CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE - 09
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT,
LABOUT DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDINGS,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NAGANAND, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI
B.C.PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI RAGHAVENDRA G.GAYATHRI, AGP FOR R2)
*****
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICES 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTIFICATION DATED 21.11.1988 UNDER ANNEXURE-D
TO THE WRIT PETITION ISSUED BY THE R2.
31
WP.NO.17603/2006:
BETWEEN:
1. G S VENUGOPAL S/O G P SHIVARAM
A/A 61 YRS,EARLIER WORKING AS ASST
ENGINEER(ELECL)KARNATAKA POWER TRANS-
MISSION CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE
SINCE RETD & R/AT NO.119,3RD MAIN
IST BLOCK, KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE - 560034
2. V VENKATA SUBBA RAO S/O LATE J V VENKATA RAO
A/A 62 YRS,EARLIER WORKING AS
DIRECTOR(TECH)KARNATAKA POWER TRANS-
MISSION CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE
SINCE RETD & R/AT NO.326,6TH MAIN
BSK I STAGE, I BLOCK, SRINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560050
3. SMT H N UMA W/O SRI PREMANANDA SHANBHOG
A/A 61 YRS,EARLIER WORKING AS CHIEF
ENGINEER KARNATAKA POWER TRANS-
MISSION CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE
SINCE RETD & R/AT NO.16, "KATHYAYANI"
5TH CROSS, I PHASE, GIRINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560085
4. K R KRISHNA PRASAD S/O K RAMACHANDRA SETTY
MAJOR,EARLIER WORKING AS CHIEF
ENGINEER(ELECL) KARNATAKA POWER TRANS-
MISSION CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE
SINCE RETD & R/AT NO.6A, "SKANDA",
4TH CROSS, I PHASE, GIRINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560085
32
5. H L NAGARAJU S/O LATE P LINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, EARLIER WORKING AS
CHIEF ENGINEER, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMIS
AND CORPORATION LIMITED, BANGALORE
SINCE RETIRED AND R/AT NO.1081,
12TH MAIN, ROAD, WEST OF CHORD ROAD
2ND STAGE, MAHALXMIPURAM, B'LORE-86
6. P R DIVAKAR NIAK S/O LATE P R SUBRAMANYA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, EARLIER WORKING AS
EXE. ENGINEER, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMIS
AND CORPORATION LIMITED, BANGALORE
SINCE RETIRED AND R/AT NO.20"SRINIVASA
NILAYA 14TH CROSS, BAGALAGUNTE,
NAGASANDRA POST, B'LORE-73
7. K SURESH S/O K KAMALAKAR RAO
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, EARLIER WORKING AS
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
KARANTAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION
LTD., BANGALORE, SNCE RETIRED AND
R/AT NO.202, BSK I STAGE, I BLOCK, 9TH
MAIN, SRINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 050
8. SAFIULLA KHAN S/O ABDUL WARIS KHAN
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, EARLIER WORKING AS
CONTROLLER OF ACCOUNTS, KARNATAKA POWER
TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD, B'LORE
SINCE RETIRED AND R/AT NO.291, 34TH CROS
9TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 011
9. VASUKI S/O H M DREEKANTALU
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, EARLIER WORKING AS
CONTROLLER OF ACCOUNTS, KARNATAKA POWER
TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., B'LORE
33
SINCE RETIRED AND R/ATNO.2285, 7TH MAIN
21ST CROSS, BSK 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-70
10. MADAIAH S/O M LINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, EARLIER WORKING AS
DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF ACCOUNTS, KARNATAK
POWER TRANSMISSION CORPN LTD, BANGALORE
SINCE RETIRED AND R/AT # 1829, 5TH MAIN
12TH CROSS, RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560040
11. M R KARPUOOR S/O MANIKAPPA KARPOOR
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, EARLIER WORKING AS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)KARNATAKA
POWER TRANSMISSION CORPN LTD, BANGALORE
SINCE RETIRED AND R/AT # 1-867/24(E)
VENKATESHNAGAR, GULBARGA - 585 102
12. K V RATHNAMAIAH GUPTA S/O KOTE
VENKATASUBBAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, EARLIER WORKING AS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)KARNATAKA
POWER TRANSMISSION CORPN LTD, BANGALORE
SINCE RETIRED AND R/AT # 631,1ST 'A'
MAIN ROAD,8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 070
13. H S RAMAKRISHNA S/O A SREENIVASA RAO
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, EARLIER WORKING AS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)KARNATAKA
POWER TRANSMISSION CORPN LTD, BANGALORE
SINCE RETIRED AND R/AT # 23/A, 4TH MAIN
TATA SILK FARM, BASAVANAGUDI ,
BANGALORE - 560 004
14. JAVARE GOWDA S S/O SOME GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, EARLIER WORKING AS
34
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)KARNATAKA
POWER TRANSMISSION CORPN LTD, BANGALORE
SINCE RETIRED AND R/AT # M-28,25TH MAIN
ROAD, J.P.NAGAR, I PHASE, BANGALORE - 78
15. K P SUBBAIAH S/O LATE PUTTASWAMY GOWDA
MAJOR, EARLIER WORKING AS
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER(ELECTRICAL)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION
LTD., BANGALORE, SINCE RETIRED
AND R/AT NO.496, 1ST B MAIN, M.S.RAMAIAH
CITY, 7TH PHASE, J.P.NAGAR, B'LORE-76
16. H C HOMBAIAH S/O CHIKKA HANUMAIAH
A/A 64 YEARS, EARLIER WORKING AS
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER(ELECTRICAL)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION
LTD., BANGALORE, SINCE RETIRED AND
R/AT NO.57, MATHURU KRUPA, 7TH C MAIN
RPC LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 040
17. M LINGARAJU S/O LATE N MALLAIAH
A/A 64 YEARS, EARLIER WORKING AS
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER(ELECTRICAL)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION
LTD., BANGALORE, SINCE RETIRED AND
R/O 440, II CROSS, III BLOCK, III STAGE
BASAVESWARANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 079
18. Y K VISHWANATH S/O K KESHAVAIAH
A/A 63 YRS, EARLIER WORKING AS
CHEIF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(ELECTRICAL)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION
LTD., BANGALORE, SINCE RETIRED AND
R/AT NO.142, 1ST R BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 017
35
19. P G SHESHASHAYANAM S/O P G SHARMA
A/A 64 YRS, EARLIER WORKING AS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(ELECTRICAL)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION
LTD., BANGALORE, SINCE RETIRED AND
R/AT NO.207, 4TH STAGE, 4TH BLOCK,
BASAVESHWARANAGAR, 17TH D CROSS, B'LORE-
20. S VELU S/O M SEETHARAM
A/A 62 YRS, EARLIER WORKING AS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(ELECTRICAL)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION
LTD., BANGALORE, SINCE RETIRED AND
R/AT NO.25, CHINNAPPA GARDEN, BENSON TOW
BANGALORE-560 041
21. G S PRAKASH S/O G M SIDDABASAVAIAH
MAJOR, EARLIER WORKING AS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(G)(ELECTRICAL)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION
LTD., BANGALORE, SINCE RETIRED AND
R/AT NO.8, V.R.LAYOUT, I PHASE
J.P.NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 078
22. R THIRUMALASWAMY S/O RANGASWAMY
MAJOR, EARLIER WORKING AS
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER(ELECTRICAL)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION
LTD., BANGALORE, SINCE RETIRED AND
R/AT NO.11, 15TH CROSS, MUNIREDDY LAYOUT
MANGAMMANAPALYA, MADIVALA PO, B'LORE-68
23. G S MANJUNATHA
S/O G SUBBA KRISHNA
MAJOR , EARLIER WORKING AS CHIEF
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION
36
LIMITED BANGALORE SINCE RETIRED AND R/AT
NO.198 SRI RAMA STREET FORT MOHALLA
24. B P PRABHAKARA PAI S/O B P NARAYANA PAI
AGED MAJOR EARLIER WORKING AS
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION
LIMITED, BANGALORE SINCE RETIRED AND
R/AT OM NILAYA VODERHOBLI KUNDAPUR 201
UDUPI DIST
25. M S KRISHNA MURTHY S/O LATE B SURYANARAYANA
RAO
AGED ABOUT 64 YRS , EARLIER WORKING
AS SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION
LIMITED BANGALORE SINCE RETIRED AND R/AT
NO.483 16TH CROSS 3RD A MAIN SECTOR 6
HSR LAYOUT BANGALORE 34
26. V K MOHAN S/O LATE S M VARADARAJAN
AGED ABOUT 64 YRS , EARLIER WORKING AS
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION
LIMITED BANGALROE SINCE RETIRED AND R/AT
NO.10/3 KARNIC ROAD BASAVANAGUDI
BANGALORE 4
27. A CHAMARAJ S/O LATE P AHOBALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YRS , EARLIER WORKING AS
CHIEF ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) KARNATAKA
POWER TRANSMISISION CORPORATION LIMITED
BANGALROE SINCE RETIRED AND R/AT NO.964
A CROSS 1ST BLOCK HRBR 3 A CROSS 1ST
BLOCK HRBR LAYOUT OUT KALYAN NAGAR
37
28. N RAGHAVENDRA RAO S/O LATE H NAGARAJA RAO
AGED ABOUT 62 YRS EARLIER WORKING AS
CHIEF ENGINEER(ELECTRICAL) KARNATAKA
POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED
BANGALORE SINCE RETIRED AND R/AT NO.367
23RD MAIN 2ND STAGE 1ST PHASE B T M
LAYOUT BANGALORE 76
29. R VENKATA REDEDDY S/O LATE G RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YRS , EARLIER WORKING AS
SUPERINTENSING ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION
LIMITED BANGALORE SINCE RETIRED AND R/AT
NO.16 15TH CROSS 6TH PHASE J P NAGAR
BANGALORE 78
30. N SHYAMA SUNDAR
S/O LATE N K SUBBARAYA
AGED ABOUT 59 YRS WORKING AS
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPROATION
LIMITED BANGALORE SINCE RETIRED AND R/AT
NO.12 SURVEYOR STREET BASAVANAGUDI
31. D C BASAVARAJ S/O LATE S V CHANNAVEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YRS , EARLIER WORKING AS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION
LIMITED BANGALORE SINCE RETIRED AND
R/AT NO.21/42 16TH MAIN 16TH CROSS
PADMANABHANAGAR BANGALORE 70
32. B V HANUMANTHE GOWDA S/O LATE B S
VENKATARAM
AGED ABOUT 61 YRS , EARLIER WORKING AS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)KARNATAKA
POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED
38
BANGALORE SINCE RETIRED AND R/AT NO.42
4TH CROSS MALLESWARAM BANGALORE 3
33. K G JAYARAM S/O LATE K GOVINDAN SHETTY
AGE MAJOR EARLIER WORKING AS CHIEF
ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) KARNATAKA
POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED
BANGALORE SINCE RETIRED AND R/AT
NO.4 5TH CROSS MARAPPA GARDEN
J C NAGAR BANGALORE 6
34. T S S HEBBAR S/O SINGAPPA HEBBAR
AGE MAJOR EARLIER WORKING AS
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
KARNATAKA POWR TRANSMISSION CORPORATION
LIMITED BANGALORE SINCE RETIRED AND R/AT 52
2ND MAIN 3RD STAGE 4TH BLOCK
BASAVESHWARNAGAR BANGALORE 79
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI P S RAJAGOPAL & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES)
AND:
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION
LIMITED
HEAD OFFICE CAUVERY BHAVAN
BANGALORE - 560 009
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI NAGANAND, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI B C
PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)
*****
39
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE
THAT THE PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE
GRATUITY AMOUNT OF RS.3,50,000/- EACH AND DIRECT
THE RESPONDENT/CORPORATION BY ISSUE OF A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO PAY TO EACH OF THE
PETITIONERS DIFFERENTIAL GRATUITY AMOUNT OF
RS.1,00,000/- TOGETHER WITH INTEREST THEREON AT
10% PER ANNUM AFTER ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE ON
WHICH EACH OF THE PETITIONERS RETIRE UNTIL DATE
OF PAYMENT.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Since a Common question arises for consideration in all these writ petitions, at the request of learned counsels they are heard together.
2. The petitioners seek a writ to quash the Board order dated 17.11.2003 in so far as it restricts the benefit of payment of enhanced gratuity only to those employees retiring or on or after 18.10.2003; to hold that the petitioners are entitled to payment of difference 40 of gratuity paid to them and the enhanced gratuity as stated by them and to direct the respondents to pay the difference and other consequential reliefs. In some of the writ petitions, an additional prayer is sought for to quash the notification of the State dated 21.11.1988 exempting the respondent from the application of the Act.
3. The petitioners are retired employees of the respondent. They retired on various dates between 1997-2003. Each one of the petitioners were holding different positions namely Superintendent Engineer, Accounts Officer, Chief Engineer, etc. Their case is that they are covered by the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations. That in the year 1989, the Karnataka Electricity Board was dissolved and the respondent-company was formed and all the employees including the petitioners were transferred to the company. The Service Regulations covering the 41 employees continued to be applicable even after the company was formed. That the payment of gratuity to the employees of the Board was governed by Section-G of Chapter 9 of the Regulations. Regulation 219(b) stipulated the amount of gratuity payable to the employees. That the amount of gratuity payable would be equal to 1/4th of the emoluments for each completed six monthly period of qualifying service subject to a maximum of 16 ½ times of the emoluments. The maximum limit was Rs.2.5 lakhs. Such a ceiling was in terms of Sec.4(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). That under the Act, gratuity is to be paid for every year of completed service at the rate of 15 years wages based on the last Wages drawn by the employee. That wages as defined under the Act were to mean all emoluments which were paid to the employees including dearness allowance. Thus, while calculating gratuity it becomes necessary for the employer to consider the pay of the employee and the 42 dearness allowance together. However the respondent has not taken into consideration the dearness allowance while calculating the gratuity. They have considered only the basic pay of the employee. That in terms of Section 4(3) of the Act, the ceiling limit was enhanced from Rs.2.5 lakhs to Rs.3.5 lakhs with effect from 24.9.1997. Hence from that day onwards, every employee of the KPTCL who retired from service would become entitled to a maximum sum of Rs.3.5 lakhs as gratuity. Notwithstanding the outer limit of Rs.2.5 lakhs prescribed under Regulation 219(b) in view of Section 4(3) of the Act, and despite the amendment to the Act, the respondent has paid gratuity of only Rs.2.5 lakhs by placing reliance on the Regulations. Thereafter, the matter regarding raising the limit was placed before the Board, wherein a decision was taken on 18.10.2003 agreeing to enhance the ceiling limit to Rs.3.5 lakhs. However, it was held, that it would be applicable to only those employees who ceased to be in service on account 43 of retirement or death as on 18.10.2003. That such an order of the Board is erroneous. It should necessarily be effective from the date the amendment took place namely with effect from 24.9.1987 and not from 18.10.2003. That after issuance of the same the petitioners submitted a representation and requested them to pay the difference in amount. However, there was no reply to the representation made. Hence the present petitions.
4. On the other hand Sri Naganand, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents counsel and Sri Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents defends the action of the respondents. They contend that during the pendency of these writ petitions, the respondents have issued one more notification dated 23.11.2009 extending the benefit to those employees who retired on 28.7.1999 onwards. Therefore so far as the said prayer of the petitioners are concerned, the same stood 44 answered in terms of this notification. They further submit that in terms of this order, the difference has also been paid and the same is not disputed by the petitioners counsel. Hence the petitions require to be dismissed as infructuous so far as this prayer is concerned.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent further contends that so far as the 2nd prayer is concerned, the petitioners are not entitled to the same. That what has been granted to the petitioners is far more than what they are entitled to; that the Governmental orders are applicable to the petitioners and are being applied and followed with by this respondent; that if the plea of the petitioners are accepted they would be drawing more benefit than what the State Government intended for its employees. Therefore such a relief granting more relief only to the employees of the respondent vis-a-vis employees of the State Government cannot be granted. Further he contends that in terms of the notification dated 45 21.11.1988, the State Government in exercise of the power conferred by Section 5 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 exempted the respondent from the application of the Payment of Gratuity Act and therefore the contention of the petitioners based on the Act would not be applicable since the respondent has been exempted from the purview of the said Act. Therefore any contention raised by the petitioners emanating from the Payment of Gratuity Act cannot be accepted. It is further contended that Memorandum of Settlements were arrived at between the respondent and its employees union on 25.9.2006, 6.2.1999., etc with regard to payment of gratuity, DCRG, pensionary benefits and other issues. It is therefore contended that having arrived at a settlement, the petitioners cannot contend anything to the contrary. That they being part of the union are governed by such a settlement, as the said settlements arrived at, are necessarily binding on all the employees including the petitioners. Para 11 of the settlement dated 6.2.1999 46 would narrate the pensionary benefits including family pension, etc. which shall be regulated as prevailing in the State Government from time to time. In pursuance whereof, the Government Order dated 15.02.1999 is relied upon to the said effect. Therefore in terms of the tripartite settlement, since the Government Orders have been made applicable, these are the Government orders that would determine the pensionary benefits of the petitioners. It is further contended that the Employees Service Regulations as relied upon by the petitioners, are not applicable to the respondent at all. These Service Regulations in so far as it pertains to matters pertaining to the pensionary benefits are wholly inapplicable. With regard to computation, it has to be made in terms of the Governmental Orders and the settlement arrived at
6. Heard Sri Sanjay Gowda, Sri.G.V.Sudhakar, Sri.Pramod Kathave and Sri B.Pramod learned counsels appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Naganand, Senior 47 Counsel appearing for Sri. B.C.Prabhakar, as well as Sri B.C.Prabhakar for respondents and examined the material on record.
7. So far as the first prayer is concerned with regard to the effective date of grant of enhanced gratuity, the same would not arise for consideration in view of the notification issued by respondent during the pendency of these proceedings, dated 23.11.2009, the relief as sought for by the petitioners has since been granted. Hence there is no more a dispute so far as the first prayer is concerned.
8. So far as the 2nd prayer is concerned, the contention of the petitioners is that they are entitled for the relief as sought for. Reliance is placed on Section 5(1) of the Act in support of their case.
Section 5(1) of the Act reads thus:
"5. Power to exempt:48
(1) The appropriate Government may, by notification, and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification, exempt any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop to which this Act applies from the operation of the provisions of this Act if, in the opinion of the appropriate Government, the employees in such establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop are in receipt of gratuity or pensionary benefits not less favourable than the benefits conferred under this Act.
(2) xxxxxxx (3) xxxxxx In terms of Section 5(1), the appropriate Government can by notification and subject to such conditions, exempt any 49 establishment, factory, etc. from the operation of the provisions of this Act, if in the opinion of the appropriate Government the employees of such an establishment, etc. are in receipt of gratuity or pensionary benefits not less favourable than the benefits conferred under this Act.
Therefore it is contended by the petitioners that if there is any benefit the employees were to receive so far as gratuity and pensionary benefits are concerned by virtue of a settlement, which are more than the benefits that they would have received under the Act, then it is those benefits that would be applicable to the petitioners. However by virtue of any settlement or otherwise, if the petitioners were to receive any benefit far less than what they would be entitled to under the Act, then in such an event, notwithstanding such a settlement, the benefit in terms of the Act would stand applicable to them. Therefore it is contended that even though a settlement has been arrived at making the Governmental orders applicable, the result of such a benefit that would accrue to 50 them under the settlement is far less than the benefit that they would receive under the Act. Therefore to hold the settlement against the petitioners is incorrect. They are entitled to the benefits as given to them under the Act, since such a benefit is far more than the benefit under the settlement. Reliance is placed on the definition of wages in terms of Section 2(s) of the Act, wherein wages have been defined as follows:
"Sec.2(s): 'wages' means all
emoluments which are earned by an
employee while on duty or on leave in
accordance with the terms and conditions of his employments and which are paid or are payable to him in cash and includes dearness allowance but does not include any bonus, commission, house rent allowance, overtime wages and any other allowance".
51The petitioners therefore contend that the inclusion of the pensionary benefits and dearness allowance as included in terms of the Governmental orders is different from the definition of wages as defined under the Act. That the wages as defined under the Act includes dearness allowance. Therefore while calculating the pensionary benefits in relation to wages, the wages shall be inclusive of dearness allowance in terms of the wages under the Act. Therefore this benefit being more than what is granted in the settlement, the petitioners are entitled to such a benefit.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent contends to the contrary. They contend that the provisions of the Act are not applicable as the appropriate Government has exempted the respondent from the operation of the Act. Therefore none of the contentions as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners deserves any merit for the reason that once the 52 respondent is exempted from operation of the Act, no relief can be granted to the petitioners under the Act.
10. On considering the contentions, I' am of the considered view that the contention of the respondent cannot be accepted. The exemption granted to the respondent is in exercise of the power under Section 5(1) of the Act. Undoubtedly the respondent is exempted from the operation of the Act, but the same sub-section would also narrate the extent to which such an exemption is granted. The exemption is qualified. It is not a condition as imposed by the State Government, even though the State Government is also conferred with a power to impose conditions under Section 5(1) of the Act, but it is a statutory condition in terms of Section 5(1) of the Act. The reading of the second part of Section 5(1) of the Act would clearly narrate that if the benefit under the Act is far more than the benefit to be received in any other form, then notwithstanding such an exemption, the employees 53 would be entitled to the benefit under the Act. In the instant case, the wages as defined under the Act includes dearness allowance. Therefore while arriving at the pensionary benefit, if dearness allowance is added on to the wages of the petitioners, then in that event, the benefit the petitioners would receive under the Act is far more. This is the purport of Section 5(1) of the Act. It is not a blanket exemption that can be granted to any establishment. The State Government may or may not impose conditions. Even if there is an absence of any conditions by the State Government, the statutory condition as mentioned under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act would operate.
11. Therefore Section 5(1) does not require any elaboration to hold that the power under Section 5(1) is subject to the condition mentioned therein. Therefore I have no difficulty to hold that the contention of the respondent that in terms of Section 5(1), an exemption 54 having been granted to the respondent, they are exempted from the purview of the Act is unacceptable. Therefore notwithstanding the exemption granted, in view of the fact that the petitioners would receive a greater benefit under the Act, than under the settlement on the government orders, such a greater benefit as granted under the Act would stand applicable to the petitioners.
12. The further contention of the respondent is that the Employees Service Regulation is not applicable to the petitioners, so far as the calculations for retirement benefits are concerned. Their specific case which they continue to reiterate, is that they are covered by the Government orders issued from time to time. In contrast the learned counsel for the petitioners rely on one such order passed by respondent namely the order dated 14.5.1999 which would show that clause - 8 which pertains to emoluments, wherein it is stated that if the personal pay, if any granted to the him under Regulation 55 9(37) of the KEBESR and Regulation 222 of KEBESR shall stand modified to the above extent. The same is extracted hereunder:
"8.0 EMOLUMENTS:
8.1 The term emoluments for the purpose of calculating various retirement and death benefits and family pension shall mean the Basic Pay drawn by a Board employee in the scale of pay applicable to the post held by him on the date of retirement/death and shall also include.
(a) Stagnation/Elongation increment, if any, granted to him above the maximum of the scale of pay.
(b) Personal Pay if any granted to him under Regulation 9(37) of the KEBESR.
8.1. xx xxx xxx 8.2 Regulation 222 of the KEBESR shall stand modified to the above extent.
568.3 xxxxxxx 9.0 Restoration of commuted portion of Pension.
9.1 In the case of a Board employee who
commutes a portion of pension under
Regulation 256 of the KEBESR, the
commuted portion of his pension shall be restored after 15 years from the date of communication.
9.2 Regulation 258(9) of the KEBESR shall stand modified to the extent. The other conditions regulating pension, gratuity, family pension and commutation of pension shall continue to apply".
Therefore the petitioners contend that the contention of the respondents cannot be accepted. That the Regulation would be applicable. The contention of the petitioners is based on clause 222 of the Regulations 57 namely Section 'H' of Chapter IX relating to pensions. The section deals with pay and allowances reckoned for pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity. The term emoluments is defined to mean what an employee was receiving immediately before his retirement or death and includes the pay and allowances and deputation allowance drawn from a source other than the Board funds. Clause (a) narrates pay as defined under in Regulation 9(34) which reads as under:
"Regulation 9 (34): Pay means the amount drawn monthly by an employee as the Pay, Special Pay, Personal Pay and any other emoluments which may be specifically classed as pay by the Board which has been sanctioned for a post held by the employee substantively or in an officiating capacity or to which the employee is entitled by reason of the position in a cadre".
58Further the note to clause 222(a) would state that the percentage of mergeable dearness allowance as noted below will form part of the emoluments for the purpose of calculation of pension.
Clause 222 reads as follows:
"222. The term "Emoluments" when used in this chapter means the emoluments which an employee was receiving immediately before his / her retirement or death and includes the following, but does not include the pay and allowances and deputation allowance drawn from a source other than the Board funds.
(a) Pay as defined in Regulation 9(34).
Note : (1) The percentage of mergeable dearness allowance as noted below will form part of the term emoluments for the purpose of calculation of pension.
59
Pay Range Percentage
(a) Revised basic pay upto 13% of basic pay Rs.3500/- per month
(b) Rs.3501/- to Rs.6000/- 10% of basic pay subject per month to a minimum of Rs.455/-
per month.
(c) Rs.6001/- and above per 8% of basic pay subject month. (w.e.f. 1.4.1989) to a minimum of Rs.600/-
per month.
Therefore it is contended that even in terms of the Regulation, pay would include a percentage of dearness allowance as narrated therein. Therefore even in terms of the Regulation, if the case of the respondent is to be accepted then dearness allowance cannot be excluded. It is restricted to that percent of dearness allowance as mentioned in the regulation. However as held herein above, the contention of the petitioner is that wages being inclusive of dearness allowance in terms of the Act is what is applicable to them. Further in order to show the anamoly and disparity meted out by the respondent in so 60 far as they are entitled to the benefit, the very Rules are relied upon to establish the same.
13(a). The learned counsel for the respondent places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Patna in the case of JANAK PRASAD SINGH vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD reported in 2004(2) LLJ p.1081 on paragraphs 12, 13, 18, 20, 21. The learned counsel reiterates that the rules applicable to the respondent are almost identical to the Bihar Pension Rules read with Regulation 75 and 77 of the Service Regulations. He therefore pleads that both the Rules are almost identical. By placing reliance on the aforesaid paragraphs, the learned counsel contends that it was held in the said judgment, that the payment under the Payment of Gratuity Act is a one time payment to the employees or their heirs, whereas under the Bihar Pension Rules apart from a one time gratuity, the retired employees get regular monthly pension till their life time and further, in 61 case of death, family pension to the dependent family members. The pension package available under the Bihar Pension Rules provides a better support system to the retired officer/employees and their dependents unlike the benefits conferred by the Gratuity Act. Therefore he contends that the same benefits are being conferred on the petitioners and that the benefits conferred on the petitioners are far more than the benefits that they would receive under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
(b) So far as the reliance placed on this judgment is concerned, I'am of the considered view that, no effort has been made to show the identity in the rules. It is only a contention. In the absence of any similarity, the judgment would not be applicable. Even otherwise, the judgment is based on the facts of that case. It is a factual declaration. There is not pronunciation of law. Therefore I' am of the view that this judgment may not be applicable to the case on hand.
62
(c) The plea is that the relief that is being granted to the petitioners is far more than what they seek through these petitions. If that were to be so and if that is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, there is no reason as to why they should be contesting this petition. If what the petitioners want is much less than what they are entitled to, then necessarily the respondents should neither be contesting nor have any objection to the plea of the petitioners, since according to the respondents even if they succeed in the writ petition, they would receive a far less benefit than what they are presently contending for. This is the fallacy in the respondents contention. Such a contention cannot be accepted, especially in view of the contest sought to be made out.
(d) Reliance is placed by the respondents on the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of VADODARA MAHANAGARA PALIKE vs. STATE OF GUJARAT reported in CLR 2008(II) 849, with particular reference to 63 paragraph 13. Therein their Lordships held that the benefits available under the Bombay Civil Service Rules provides a better support system to the retired officer/employees and their dependents unlike the benefits conferred by the Gratuity Act. Therefore an attempt to have the benefit of both the Acts is not permissible. On facts it was held that the benefits under the Service Rules is far greater than the benefits under the Gratuity Act. However, on facts the instant case is opposite. Factually the benefits under the Gratuity Act are far more than the benefits under the said Act. Therefore, on this issue the facts are contrary to this case. It has been further held that the employees cannot take benefit of both the Acts. The petitioners herein do not seek benefit from both the sources. The benefit is being sought for only under the Act. Therefore, the said Judgment would be of no avail to the respondents.
64
(e) Reliance is placed by the respondents on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Bhim Sen Jindal vs. State of Haryana and others reported in 2012 (1) LLN 316 (DB)(P&H), with particular reference to para - 6, 8 and 9. At para - 6, it was held as follows:
"6........on a plain reading of the statutory provision, it is evident that both the gratuity or pensionary benefits can be taken into consideration to find out whether such benefits are not less favourable than the benefits conferred under the Act."
Reliance is also placed on para-9, to the effect that based on the facts and circumstances, the Division Bench therein was of the view that the exemption from the operation of the Act can be given to the establishment from a retrospective date and the element of pension or gratuity can also be taken into account for the purpose of Sections - 5(1) and 5(2) of the Act to work out whether 65 the provision of the Rules are less favourable than the benefits conferred under the Act.
15. On considering the judgment, what emerges is that firstly, the Division Bench held that the power exercisable under Section - 5(1) of the Act can be exercised from a retrospective effect, when it was contended therein that the exemption cannot be made with retrospective effect. The Division Bench annulled such a contention and held that an exemption can be granted even from a retrospective date.
16. The question of the effective date either prospective or retrospective is not a consideration herein. Therefore the said Judgment on this issue is not applicable. It was further held that the pension and the gratuity should be taken into account to ascertain whether the benefit under the Act is more favourabe than the benefits under the Rules. This is exactly what is being considered through these petitions. The benefits under the Act and 66 the benefits under the settlement have to be ascertained, to determine to which is more beneficial to the employees. Hence the judgment would be of no avail to the respondents.
17. Reliance is also placed by the respondents on the recent judgment of this Court in the case of Sri.Kumbaiah & Another vs. The State of Karnataka and Others, reported in ILR 2013 KAR 26, with reference to para - 33, which reads as follows:
"33.......the settlement made with the employees' union is binding on the Management and in the instant case, when in terms of clause XVIII of the settlement dated 25.06.2006, it is stated that pensionary benefits including family pension shall be regulated as prevailing in the State Government from time to time, the same must be made fully applicable to those employees who retired from 01.04.2003 onwards particularly those who retired between 01.04.2003 and 01.07.2005. The orders of the 67 Learned Single Judge, therefore, call for interference in these writ appeals. The said orders are set-aside. The writ appeals are allowed. The endorsement dated 23.09.2009 is quashed. The respondents are directed to extend a revised petition/family pension to the appellants and all persons similarly situated in terms of the State Government Order dated 06.06.2007. No costs."
Therefore, it is pleaded by the respondents that based on this judgment, the terms of the agreement should be enforced on the petitioners.
18. In the judgment relied upon, the applicability or otherwise of the provisions of the Act have not been considered. The dispute therein was with regard to the enforceability of the agreement between the Karnataka Government and the erstwhile Karnataka Electricity Board and the Karnataka Electricity Employees Union. By an order dated 02.06.2008 of the KPTCL, the basic pay was enhanced from 10% to 12% to the employees who were in 68 services as on 01.04.2003. The petitioners being aggrieved by the discrimination meted out to those employees who had retired between 01.04.2003 and 01.07.2005, sought to question the same through the writ petition and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the instant writ appeal was filed wherein the Division Bench held at para - 33 as above.
19. The applicability of the Act vis-à-vis, the agreements entered into between the petitioners and the Union was never an issue that arose for consideration before the Division Bench. The question that was considered before the Division Bench is totally alien to what is being considered in the present petitions. Hence, I'am of the considered view that the judgment of the Division Bench is not applicable to the case on hand.
20. The next limb of the contention of the petitioners is on Section- 14 of the Act, which reads as follows:
69
"14. Act to override other enactments, etc. - The provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act or in any instrument or contract having effect by virtue of any enactment otherthan this Act."
It is therefore contended that notwithstanding any instrument or contract between the parties, the same will not have any effect by virtue of this section.
21. However, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that such a contention cannot be advanced in view of the grant of an exemption under Section - 5(1) of the Act. Section-14 cannot be held against them.
22. In view of considering the primary contention of the petitioners, it would be unnecessary to consider this contention.
70
23. Lastly, the learned counsel for the respondent contends that if the plea of the petitioners were to be accepted, there would be financial implication on the respondents to an extent of about Rs.119 crores. Therefore, it is pleaded that the repercussion of such an order would be far reaching. I have considered the submission. Only because the financial implications would arise and that the respondent would have to satisfy such a claim cannot by itself constitute a ground to hold the same against the petitioners. If under Law the petitioners are entitled to such amounts the extent of the financial implication by itself cannot be a ground to deny their lawful rights. It is a lawful entitlement. It is a legal right and the right requires to be honoured.
24. Further, the financial implication as on today, is the entitlement of the petitioner that has been denied to them all these years. The petitioners were entitled to it right from inception. It was this amount that was denied to 71 them. It is this amount that has accumulated. It is this amount which should have been given to them which has continued to remain with the respondents. It is this amount which should have been parted with by the respondents on the date of the petitioners entitlement. Under these circumstances, I'am of the considered view that the contentions respondent on the financial implication cannot be accepted.
25. For the aforesaid reasons, I'am of the considered view that the contentions of the petitioner with regard to their entitlement under the Act, in terms of the definition under Section - 2(s) of the Act requires to be applied on all fours. Under these circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the benefits to the petitioners under the Act are far more than the benefits under the agreement/settlement between them and the union or under the Government orders. The pensionary benefits requires to be calculated in terms of the definition of 72 wages under Section - 2(s) of the Act. Consequently the petitioners require to succeed.
26. The prayer of the petitioners in some of the petitions is to quash the exemption order dated 21.11.1988 issued under Section 5(1) of the Act. It is contended that the exemption granted to the respondent is beyond authority of Law. However, the learned counsel for the respondent defends the same. He firstly contends that the notification is of the year 1988 which has been in operation since then. To question the same in the year 2005 is wholly uncalled for. That it is only in W.P.No. 21924/2005 and in W.P. No. 370/2007, that it has been questioned and that they are no adequate grounds to allow the same.
27. On hearing the learned counsels, I'am of the considered view that there is no good ground to quash the notification. Firstly, in view of the inordinate delay in 73 questioning the notification and secondly, that there are no adequate grounds to quash the said notification. Hence, the prayer so far as the quashing the notification is concerned is rejected.
28. The prayer to enhance the ceiling limit of gratuity from Rs.2.5 lakhs to Rs.3.5 lakhs from the effective date does not arise for consideration in view of the Notification dated 23-11-2009 issued by the respondents during the pendency of these proceedings granting the said relief. During the pendency of these Petitions the respondent have extended the said benefit namely, to increase the maximum limit to Rs.3.5 lakhs to those employees who retired on 28-7-1999 onwards. Hence, so far as this prayer is concerned in view of the subsequent development the same would be infructuous. Hence the following order:-
74
1) The prayer of the petitioners to enhance the ceiling limit from the effective date is dismissed as infructuous.
2) The prayer of the petitioners to quash the exemption order issued by the State Government dated 21-11-1988 under Section 5(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act is dismissed.
3) It is held that the petitioners are entitled for pensionary benefits calculated in terms of definition of wages under Section 2(s) of the Payment of gratuity Act.
That such pensionary benefits shall be calculated and disbursed as expeditiously as possible.
Writ petitions are disposed off accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Snb/JJ