Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Venkataramaiah T vs The Managing Director on 27 November, 2019

Author: Krishna S.Dixit

Bench: Krishna S.Dixit

                            1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019

                         BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

     WRIT PETITION NOS.44487-44495 OF 2014 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1.    SRI VENKATARAMAIAH T.
      S/O LATE THIMMLEGOWDA K.
      AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
      SENIOR MECHANIC,
      CH NO. K 48, KPTCL-TCD
      RACE COURSE ROAD
      ANANDARAO CIRCLE
      BANGALORE-560 009

2.    SRI. GANGANNA H.T
      S/O LATE GANGAIAH
      AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
      1ST CLASS MECHANIC
      CH NO. K M 114, KPTCL-TCD
      ANANDARAO CIRCLE
      BANGALORE-560 009

3.    SRI. RANGASWAMIAH H
      S/O LATE HUCHCHAIAH
      AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
      MECHANIC, GRADE-I
      CH NO. KM 113, KPTCL-LDC
      ANANDARAO CIRCLE
      BANGALORE-560 009

4.    SRI. YERAPPA
      S/O LATE LAKSHMAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
      SENIOR MECHANIC (RETD)
      CH NO. K 73, KPTCL-TCD
      ANANDARAO CIRCLE
      BANGALROE-560 009

5.    SRI. RAJASHEKAR MURTHY M.S.
      S/O LATE M.S. SIDDAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
                             2

     JUNIOR ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL
     BESCOM-O&M NO.8, GOWRIPALYA
     MAGADI ROAD SUB-DIVISION
     BANGALORE-560 003

6.   SRI. RAMEGOWDA G M
     S/O LATE MUDALAGIRIGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
     MERRIT GRADE, CH NO. K 45
     KPTCL-RAJAJINAGAR
     BANGALORE-560 009

7.   SRI. RANGAIAH
     S/O DODDAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
     JUNIOR ENGINEER, O & M NO.22
     BESCOM-KENGERI SUB-DIVISION
     MYSORE ROAD
     BANGALORE-560 060

8.   SRI. VIRUPAKSHAPPA K M
     S/O LATE MALLAPPA K R
     SINCE DEAD BY LRS

     8A.   SMT. KUSUMA M.S
           W/O. LATE SRI VIRUPAKSHAPPA K.M.
           AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

     8B.   SRI DHANANJAYA K.V.
           S/O. LATE SRI VIRUPAKSHAPPA K.M.
           AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

           8A & 8B ARE PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
           SRI. PUSHPAGIRI MALLIKARJUNSWAMY NILAYA
           KAVERI NAGAR, BEHIND KAVERI SAW MILL
           CHIKAMAGALURU - 577 177

     8C.   SMT. DEEPIKA K.V.
           D/O LATE VIRUPAKSHAPPA K.M.
           W/O. D.G.KIRANKUMAR
           AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
           R/AT: CANARA BANK PREMISES BUILDING
           CHILUR, NYAMATI TALUK
           DAVANAGERE DISTRICT

9.   SRI. RAMAKRISHNAIAH
     S/O MAYANNA
     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
                              3

       METER READER, CESC-DIVISION-3
       GUTHAKAL SUB-DIVISION
       MANDYA DIVISION
       MANDYA-575 401             ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:
1.     THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
       KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
       CORPORATION LTD. (KPTCL)
       KAVERI BHAVAN
       BANGALORE-560 009


2.     THE DIRECTOR (ADMIN & HR)
       KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
       CORP9ORTAION LTD. (KPTCL)
       KAVERI BHAVAN
       BANGALORE-560 009

3.     THE CHIEF ENGINEER
       KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION
       LIMITED, SLDC & TCD
       ANADARAO CIRCLE
       BANGALORE-560 009

4.     THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
       BESCOM, K.R. CIRCLE
       BANGALORE-560 009

5.     MANAGING DIRECTOR
       CESCOM, SARASWATHIPURAM
       MYSORE

6.     SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
       KPTCH., RELAY TESTING CENTER
       RAJAJINAGAR
       BANGALORE-560 010

7.     EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
       CESCOM, MANDYA DIVISION
       MANDYA

8.     EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
       CESCOM, HASSAN DIVISION
       HASSAN
                              4


9.   THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
     TL & SS, TCD, DIVISION
     MRS, KPTCL, SHIVAMOGGA
     SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT                  ... RESPONDENTS

(BY MR. ANNU BHARADWAJ FOR SRI HARIKRISHNA S.
HOLLA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI G.C.SHANMUKHA,
ADVOCATE FOR R5, R7 & R8; R1, R3, R4, R6 & R7 ARE
SERVED)

     THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO EXTEND THE BENEFIT OF
CLAUSE (5) OF MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT DT:
15.05.1978 VIDE ANNEXURE-A & GRANT THEM BENEFIT
OF ABSORPTION OF OCMPLETION OF 240 DAYS OF
CONTINUOUS SERVICE IN A 12 CALENDER MONTH ON THE
SUCCEDING 1ST OF JULY 1978/79 AND ETC.

    THESE   WRIT  PETITIONS  COMING   ON   FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

The writ petitioners seek a direction to the answering respondents herein to extend to them the benefit of Clause 5 of Memorandum of Settlement dated 15.09.1978, a copy whereof is at Annexure - A and which reads as under:

"5. Further, it is agreed that such of the TTR men of the O&M Divisions including Central Stores, Workshops, M.T., R.T., T.C.D., Generating stations etc, who were on rolls on 31.03.1978 and who complete subsequent to 30th June, 1977, 240 days of service in any consecutive 12 calendar months 5 will be absorbed according to seniority and suitability as per the provisions of Recruitment and Promotion Regulations subject to Clause 8 below, in these Divisions by creating supernumerary posts, if necessary. Further, it is agreed to review the position of such men on 1st July of each year for absorption on the above lines subject to Clause 8 below."

2. After service of notice, the answering respondents having entered appearance through their counsel resist the writ petitions contending that the benefit of para No.5 does not avail to the petitioners at all, when their case falls under para No.6 of the settlement which reads as under:

"6. it is agreed to absorb such of the TTR men working in Major works who have completed 3 years continuous service as on 30th June, 1977 by creation of supernumerary posts in the Maintenance Establishment in Grade Rs.300-465 in Major Works divisions with effect from 01.05.1978. Further, It is agreed to review in future the cases of TTR men of Major works on 1st July every year and to absorb such of the men who complete 3 years continuous service as on that date according to seniority and suitability as per the provisions of Recruitment and Promotion Regulations subject to clause 8 below."
6

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, no relief can be granted to the petitioners because:

a) the case of the petitioners going by their designation and date of appointment does not fall within para no.5 of the settlement which is reproduced above, but falls under para No.6 thereof which again is conditioned as to the date of appointment and years of service to be put in during specified period; going by the petitioners' averment, the requirements of the precondition in para No.6 and even para No.5 are not satisfied and therefore, the claim of the petitioners is not legally sustainable;
b) the contention of the petitioners that one Mr.J.K.Kariyaiah, who was similarly circumstanced with them was given the benefit of para No.5 of the settlement is partially true in the sense that such a benefit was in fact given to him but later came to be withdrawn; the said withdrawal was set at naught by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide Judgment dated 07.09.2011 in Kariyaiah's W.P.No.11447/2010 on the ground that he was not heard in the matter; after 7 matter being remanded, a fresh decision was taken withdrawing the benefit that was granted to him;

c) the learned counsel for the petitioners during the hearing placed on record another information obtained by yet another employee under RTI to the effect that one Mr.Ujjani Gowda (S.A.Grade-I) was granted the benefit of which the petitioners are now claiming before this Court and therefore on the principle of parity, they too have to be extended with the same; it is a settled legal position that in service matters, a person claiming the benefit on the basis of parity needs to show not only that he is similarly circumstanced but also that the benefit granted to the so called other persons is in accordance with law; this twin test having not been satisfied, the petitioners cannot found their case on the principle of parity.

In the above circumstances, these writ petitions being devoid of merits are dismissed.

No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE KTY