Karnataka High Court
Kariyapppa vs Karnataka Power Transmission ... on 25 November, 2022
Author: S.G. Pandit
Bench: S.G. Pandit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
WRIT PETITION No.29386/2015 (S-R)
BETWEEN:
KARIYAPPA
S/O WADAMARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER, ICT & MIS DIVISION
BESCOM CIRCLE OFFICE
TUMKUR. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.M.SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADV.)
AND:
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED
CORPORATE OFFICE, CAUVERY BHAVAN
BANGALORE-560009
REPTD BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADV.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE
RECORDS LEADING TO THE ISSUE OF OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM
DATED 19.11.2013; AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
2
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness of the O.M. bearing No.PÁ¤EA(«)/¯É/¸À¯É/¹-3/2012-13/7376 dated 19.11.2013 (Annexure-F) by which the petitioner's pay is re- fixed in terms of the revision of pay scale of 1986; and the petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus to grant the increment that the petitioner was due as depicted in O.M. dated 02.04.2013 and to grant all consequential benefits including arrears of salary.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.M.Subramanya Bhat for the petitioner and learned counsel Sri.Shirish Krishna for respondent. Perused the writ petition papers.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner joined the service as Junior Engineer in the respondent - Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (for short "KPTCL") on 02.06.1984. The petitioner 3 was promoted as Assistant Engineer on 19.03.2003 and subsequently on 12.10.2006, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer. When the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Engineer, he was appointed in the pay scale of Rs.630-1405. But, his pay was fixed at Rs.600/- i.e., one increment less than the minimum of the pay scale, against which, several employees of respondent- KPTCL approached this Court in which this Court directed fixation of pay at Rs.630/- at minimum of the pay scale. The same was taken up in appeal to Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7763/2001 and the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 05.12.2007 directed the respondent to correct the anomaly and to grant Rs.630/-, the minimum of pay scale as on the date of his appointment. In the meanwhile, revision of pay scale had taken place with effect from 01.04.1986. The date of increment of the petitioner was June of every year. The 1986 pay revision was given effect to, from 01.04.1985. 4
4. Learned counsel would submit that the revision of pay is to be fixed as indicated in the respondent-KPTCL's order dated 31.01.1986 which provides for fixation of pay in the revised pay scale as on 01.04.1985. It is the contention of the petitioner that the revision of pay scale is to be given effect to from 01.04.1985 in the corresponding revised pay i.e., pay scale of Rs.630-1405 was revised to Rs.1050-2435. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the revised pay scale of Rs.1050-2435, pay shall be fixed in the revised pay scale granting one increment as on 01.04.1985 and the petitioner would be entitled for the normal increment as on 01.06.1985 i.e., June of every year. It is submitted that the petitioner's pay was fixed in the revised pay scale of 1986 by O.M. dated 02.04.2013 which was proper and correct, in which it is submitted that as on 01.04.1985 it was fixed at Rs.1160/- in the pay scale of Rs.1050-2435. But under Annexure-F, O.M. dated 19.11.2013, the petitioner's pay was again revised downwards and fixed at Rs.1160/- on 5 01.04.1985 and he was granted next increment on 01.06.1986.
5. The petitioner's grievance is that on re-fixation of pay on 01.04.1985, he would be entitled for normal increment in June, 1985 which was denied, which amounts to postponing the increment. Learned counsel would further submit that the said anomaly was represented to the respondent and the respondent by order dated 18.12.2012 provided for exercising option to opt for retaining earlier date of increment while re-fixing their pay. Since the petitioner submitted such option, he would be entitled for one increment at the time of re-fixation as well as normal increment at June of every year. Since the petitioner's pay is revised and fixed on 01.04.1985, denying the normal increment in June would amount to postponing the increment and such postponing is impermissible. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition.
6
6. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Shirish Krishna would justify the re-fixation of pay as on 01.04.1985. He submits that the revision is in accordance with the order dated 31.01.1986 of the respondent-KPTCL. Inviting attention of this Court to Clause-6(I)(i) and (iii) of order dated 31.01.1986 would submit that the petitioner's pay was fixed as on 01.04.1985 by granting one increment on revision of pay as well as the increment which he was entitled in the normal course. Thus, he submits that the petitioner was not denied normal increment and as contended, the increment is also not postponed. Learned counsel would invite attention of this Court to impugned O.M. dated 19.11.2013 (Annexure-F) and submits that on revision of pay as on 01.04.1985, the petitioner's pay is fixed at Rs.1160/- which the revised pay scale provided for a person who was drawing pay of Rs.630/- in the previous scale of pay. Learned counsel would submit that in the pay scale of Rs.630-1405 as on 01.04.1985, the petitioner was drawing the minimum of the pay of Rs.630/-. 7 The revised pay scale for Rs.630-1405 would be Rs.1050- 2435. The petitioner would be entitled for Rs.1050/- which is the minimum of the scale which the petitioner was drawing in the previous pay scale also. To that Rs.1050/-, increment would be Rs.30/- at the first instance and thereafter Rs.50/-. The petitioner is granted two increments of Rs.30/- while re- fixing his pay and one normal increment of Rs.50/- is added while fixing the pay of the petitioner at Rs.1160/- and the next increment is granted only on 01.06.1986, which according to the learned counsel is proper and correct, is in accordance with the order dated 31.01.1986. Therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that his increment is postponed. On the other hand, the fixation of pay of the petitioner is more advantageous to the petitioner. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. As on 01.04.1985, the petitioner was drawing the pay of Rs.630/- in the pay scale of Rs.630-1405. By respondent-KPTCL's order dated 31.01.1986, revision of pay 8 scale came into effect and the revision of pay scale was given effect to from 01.04.1985. Relevant portion of the order of revision of pay which is relevant for the facts of the present case are extracted here below:
"6. PAY FIXATION AND SERVICE WEIGHTAGE:
(I). The initial pay of the workmen to whom the Revised Scales of pay apply shall be fixed in that scale as on 1-4-1985 in the following manner:
(i) To the existing Basic Pay (Existing Pay shall be arrived at after taking into account the annual increment due, if any, elongation increment due as on 1-4-1985 in the existing scale, including personal pay, if any) add the following:
(a) The component of Dearness Allowance at 504 AICPI points on the existing basic pay (i.e., Dearness allowance arrived at on the existing pay PLUS Margeable Dearness allowance as per the Board order No.KEB/B16.3805/84-85 dated 9 31.5.1984 as on 1.8.1983 and Board order No. B16.4134/84-85 dated 2-2-
1965, relaxing the maximum limit of Dearness allowance), PLUS
(b) Minimum Guaranteed Benefit of Rs.80/-
(Eighty) PLUS
(c) Service weightage at the following rates:
(i) to those workmen who have put in less then 3 (three) years of service in Regular Maintenance/Workcharged Establishment as on 1-4-1985. NIL
(ii) to those workmen who have put in not less than 3 (three years but below 5 (five) years of service in Regular/ Maintenance/ Workcharged Establishment as on 1.4.1985.
... Rs.20/- (Twenty)
(iii) to those workmen who have put in not less than 5 (five) years but below 10 10 (ten) years of service in Regular/ Maintenance/ Workcharged Establishment as on 1.4.1985.
...Rs.30/- (Thirty)
(iv) to those workmen who have put in not less than 10 (ten) years but below 15 (fifteen) years of service in Regular/ Maintenance/ Workcharged Establishment as on 1.4.1985.
... Rs.40/- (Forty)
(iii) In the case of a workman, who but for his/her fixation of pay in the revised scale, would have earned normal increment/elongation increment in the case of those who reach the maximum of the scale in the existing scale in the usual course subsequent to 1-4-1985 but before 1- 4-1986, his/her pay in the revised scale shall, if advantageous to him/her, be refixed from the date of his/her earning such increment in accordance with the aforesaid pay fixation formula. In such cases, the service weightage admissible shall be determined on the basis of the total service of the workman as on the date of the actual accrual of 11 these increments after 1-4-1985 but before 1-4- 1986.
The pay of the workmen may be fixed in the revised scales of pay as per the Ready reckoner enclosed to this order vide ANNEXURE-II." The above Clause of the order of revision of pay makes it clear that the existing basic pay as on 01.04.1985 shall be arrived at after taking into account the annual increment due, if any, elongation increment due as on 01.04.1985 in the existing scale and shall be fixed the pay in the revised pay scale, which means the petitioner is entitled to add annual increment due as on June 1985 and elongation increment due i.e., Rs.30/- each and his basic pay is arrived at. Once basic pay is equated to the pay in the revised scale, one more increment at Rs.50/- is granted and his pay is fixed at Rs.1160/- in the pay scale of Rs.1050-2435. The petitioner's contention that even thereafter he would be entitled for normal increment on June 1985 cannot be accepted. 12
8. In terms of Clause 6(I)(i), the basic pay is to be fixed in the existing scale after taking into account the annual increment due, if any. Therefore, when while fixing the pay in the revised pay scale, increment due is to be added to arrive at existing basic pay. While fixing the pay of the petitioner in the revised pay scale, increment due on 01.06.1985 was added to his existing basic pay and thereafter his pay is fixed in the revised pay scale i.e., the corresponding revised pay scale for Rs.630-1405/- was Rs.1050-2435; petitioner was drawing Rs.630/- in the old scale of pay and equivalent would be Rs.1050/-; to the said Rs.1050/- increment of Rs.30/- on fixation, Rs.30/- normal increment the petitioner was entitled to on 01.06.1985 and one more increment of Rs.50/- was added (Rs.1050 + 30 + 30 + 50 = Rs.1160/-). Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any grievance. The petitioner is more ambitious and even after getting more than what he is entitled, he cannot plead for adding one more increment as on 13 June, 1985. The pay fixed at Rs.1160/- as on 01.04.1985 is more advantageous to the petitioner.
9. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot be called as an aggrieved person under Annexure-F, O.M. dated 19.11.2013. Thus, I do not find any error and I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned fixation of pay under Annexure-F, impugned O.M. dated 19.11.2013.
Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE NC