Karnataka High Court
Sri R Muniswamy S/O Sri Ramanna vs Karnataka Electricity Board on 29 August, 2012
Bench: N.Kumar, H.S.Kempanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. KEMPANNA
WRIT PETITION Nos.4743-48/2010 (S-RES)
C/W
W.P Nos. 8624/2007, 8625/2007, 6638/2008,
7356/2008, 8458/2008, 8834/2008, 9729/2008,
9730/2008, 11798/2008, 40258-40260/2010,
17792-17796/2010, 11300-302/2011,
22142-145/2011 (S-RES)
IN W.P.Nos.4743 - 48/2010 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI R MUNISWAMY,
S/O SRI RAMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINNER
(ELEC), O/O THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER (ELEC),
BESCOM, N4 SUB DIVISION
HEGGANAHALLI, O & M, PEENYA 2ND STAGE,
BANGLAORE,
AND R/A NO.23 2ND MAIN 2ND CROSS
SHIVANAGARA, RAJAJINAGARA,
BANGALORE 560 010.
2. SRI N SUBBA RAO,
S/O LATE M S NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINNER
(ELEC) O/O ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
(ELEC) NO.2 SUB-DIVISION, BESCOM
2
HOUSING BOARD COLONY, VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE,
AND R/A NO.8, 5TH MAIN, CHAMUNDESHWARI
LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURAM.
BANGALORE 560 097.
3. SRI M MAHESH,
S/O LATE M MAHADEVA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINNER
(ELEC) O/O EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC)
BESCOM, M.T.DIVISION, RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE 560010,
AND R/A NO.89, R.V.ROAD
BASAVANGUDI, BANGALORE 560004.
4. SRI N DORESWAMY GOWDA,
S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS SENIOR ASSISTANT
O/O EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC)
BESCOM, ADDITIONAL CENTRAL DIVISION,
HEBBAL (UAS CAMPUS) HEBBAL, BANGALORE 24
AND R/A NO.23, 1ST "D" MAIN ROAD
SHIVANAGAR,
BANGALORE 560010.
5. SMT G S BABY SAROJA,
W/O SRI M R SHIVAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS TYPIST
O/O ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC)
NO.4 SUB-DIVISION, 2ND STAGE, PEENYA
BANGALORE & R/A NO.972/B, 4TH "E" BLOCK
64TH CROSS, 10TH MAIN, RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE 560010
6. SRI SIDDAPPA,
S/O LATE JAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RETIRED TYPIST
O/O EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC)
BESCOM, NORTH DIVISION,
3
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE,
& R/A NO.9, 1ST A CROSS, 3RD MAIN
SOMESHWARA NAGARA, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BANGALORE. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI N DEVARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD
(BOARD CONSTITUTED UNDER ELECTRICITY ACT),
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BANGALORE 560001.
2. KARNATAKA VIDYUTH PRASARANA NIGAMA LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
(ADMINISTRATIVE AND HUMAN RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT)
K.P.T.C.L., CAUVERY BHAVAN
BANGALORE 560001. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: GURUDEV I GACHCHINMATH ADVOCATE FOR R1
TO R3)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,
PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT.12.12.08
MARKED AT ANN-E, ISSUED BY THE R2, MANAGING
DIRECTOR, ONLY IN SO FAR IT RELATES TO DENIAL OF
INCREMENTAL ARREARS FROM THE DATE OF ITS
ENTITLEMENTS TO TILL THE DATE OF THE IMPUGNED
ORDER & WITH A FURTHER DIRECTION TO THE
RESPONDENTS TO PAY INCREMENTS & ARREARS
TOGETHER WITH 18% OF INTEREST FOR THE DELAYED
PAYMENT.
IN WRIT PETITION NO: 8624/2007 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
ANANDAIAH L T,
4
S/O L S THAMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
WORKING AS SENIOR ASSISTANT,
BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY
(ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER), TUMKUR
R/A MARUTHINAGAR, 7TH A LINK.
TUMKUR. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI P H VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MANAGING DIRECTOR BESCOM
K.R.CIRCLE,
BANGALORE.
2. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER
BESCOM, TUMKUR CIRCLE,
TUMKUR
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BESCOM, TUMKUR DIVISION,
TUMKUR. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: GURUDEV I GACHCHINMATH ADVOCATE FOR R1
TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT DT. 2.1.2007 VIDE ANNEX.D.
HOLDING THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND
WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO: 8625/2007 (S-RES):
BETWEEN:
CHANDRAIAH T S,
S/O SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
WORKING AS SENIOR ASSISTANT,
BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY
(ASSISTANT MANAGING DIRECTOR), TUMKUR
5
R/A RENUKA NILAYA, MUNICIPAL LAYOUT,
TUMKUR. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: P H VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MANAGING DIRECTOR BESCOM
K.R.CIRCLE,
BANGALORE.
2. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER
BESCOM, TUMKUR CIRCLE,
TUMKUR
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BESCOM, TUMKUR DIVISION,
TUMKUR. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI : GURUDEV I GACHCHINMATH, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT DT.13.2.2006 VIDE
ANNEXURE-D HOLDING THE SAME IS ILLEGAL,
ARBITRARY AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION.
IN WRIT PETITION NO: 6638/2008 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI MOHAN KALLURAYA N
S/O.GOPAL KRISHNA KALLURAYA N
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
EXECUTION ENGINEER ELECTRICAL
IA AND QC KPTCL, 412,4TH FLOOR,
KAVERI BHAVAN,KPTCL,
BANGALORE.
2. SRI L RAVI,
S/O.LATE.N.LEPAKSHI,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT.NO.68, 4TH MAIN,
DOMLUR 2ND STAGE,
6
BANGALORE-560 071.
3. SRI S HARISH,
S/O.LATE.H.SESHAGIRI RAO,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT.NO.16 & 17/11/A 2ND CROSS,
SHAKTHIGANAPATHI NAGAR,
BASAVESHWARA NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 079.
4. SRI S M PARAMESHWARAIAH
S/O.LATE.S.L.MUDDABASAVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
RETIRED ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
R/AT.NO.67,3RD MAIN ROAD,
M.L.A.LAYOUT, R.T.NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 032.
5. SMT N SUGUNA,
W/O.C.V.SRINIVASAN,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
DGM (O)BRG BESCOM,
R.P.BUILDING,N.T.ROAD,
BANGALORE.1
6. SRI R SHANKAR NARAYAN,
S/O.LATE.P.RANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT.NO.13,1ST'N'BLOCK,
RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE.10
7. SRI H NAGARAJ
S/O.DR.H.P.ACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER ELECTRICAL
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER ELECTRICAL,
CFC BUILDING, N.T.ROAD,
BESCOM,BANGALORE.
8. SRI U NANJUNDAPPA
S/O.N.UTHANALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) MMI,
7
PROCUREMENT SECTION,
CORPORATE OFFICE, BESCOM,
KR CIRCLE, BANGALORE.
9. SRI H PURUSHOTHAMMA
S/O.LATE.C.HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
NO.124, 4TH MAIN ROAD,
GANGANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 032.
10. SRI V GOVIND RAJU
S/O.S.A.VENKATARAMA RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
NO.648, 6TH MAIN ROAD,
ISRO LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-560 078.
11. SRI AZAZ AHAMED
S/O.LATE.M.UMER ISMAIL SAIT
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT.A-8, KPTCL QUARTERS,
7TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS,HAL 2ND STAGE,
INDIRANAGAR,BANGALORE- 560 008.
12. SRI B N SATISH CHANDRA
S/O.LATE.S.B.NARASIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT.NO.488,33RD 'A' CROSS,
9TH MAIN,4TH BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR,BANGALORE-560 011.
13. SRI T C ANAND KUMAR
S/O.B.CHANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
CEE (T & P) KAVERI BHAVAN,
KPTCL, BANGALORE.
14. SRI D M NARAYANA SWAMY
S/O.LATE.MUNIVENKALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/AT.NO.11,"SREE SOWRABHA"
II MAIN ROAD, DODDABOMASANDRA,
8
VIDYARANYAPURA,BANGALORE-560 097.
15. SRI S M JAYAPRAKASH
S/O.LATE.T.S.MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
CORPORATE OFFICE,
BESCOM, K.R.CIRCLE,
BANGALORE.
16. SRI C R VIJAYDEV
S/O.LATE.C.R.RAJARAM,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
CORPORATE OFFICE,
BESCOM,CRESCENT ROAD,
MADHAVANAGAR,BANGALORE.
17. SRI K B MANJUNATH
S/O.S.BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (KPTCL)
R/AT."BASAVA NILAYA"1ST CROSS,
'A'BLOCK, GANDHINAGAR,SHIMOGA-572 201.
18. SRI N SEETHARAM
S/O.H.S.NARAYANA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
746/57,12TH CROSS,
(OLD 3RD CROSS) 1ST MAIN,
VYALIKAVAL EXTN.
BANGALORE-560 03. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI A MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION
KAVERI BHAVAN,
BANGALORE.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. GENERAL MANAGER
(ADM AND HR)
M/S.KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
9
CORPORATION,
BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI : B C PRABHAKAR FOR M/S BHOOPALAM LAW
ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUNGED APPENDIX I TO ANN-A, I.E,
BOARD ORDER OF THE R1, IN DT.9.7.77 AND ALSO
FURTHER QUASH THE CLARIFICATION FOUND AT ANN-B,
ISSUED BY THE R1, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY DT.7.4.78
TO THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ELECL) K.E.B BANGALORE
AND FURTHER ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY
OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRECTIN DIRECTING
THE RESPONDENT BOARD TO REFIX THE SALARY OF THE
PETITIONERS BY STARTING THE SALARIES OF THE
PETITIONERS AT THE MINIMUM OF THEIR PAY SCALE
FROM THE DATE OF ENTRY IN TO SERVICE BY
SANCTIONING TO THE PETITONERS THE INCREMENT
THAT WAS DEPRIVED OF DURING THE PROBATIONARY
PERIOD, AND TO GRANT ALL OTHER FURTHER
CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF EMANATING FROM THE
RESTORING THE SAID INCREMENT, AND GIVE THE SAME
BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONERS AS WERE GIVEN TO
MR.PRASANNA KUMAR VIDE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM
DT.6.3.08, FOUND AT ANN-J ALLOW THIS WP WITH COSTS
AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS.
IN WRIT PETITION NO: 7356/2008 (S-RES):
BETWEEN:
1. SMT LAKSHMI R R
W/O DR S RAGHU
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
ELECTRICAL, BESCOM R/AT OLD NO 49, NEW O
8, 7TH CROSS, S P EXTENSION, MALLESAWRAM
BANGALORE 560 003.
10
2. SMT P SAROJAMMA
W/O R ELLAN
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
ELECTRICAL, BESCOM, R/AT NO 2461, 4
MAIN, 2 A CROSS, HAL 3 STAGE, KONENA
AGRAHARA, BANGALORE 560 017.
3. SRI H KOTRPAPA
S/O H CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL
O & M DIVISION, GESCOM, YADGIR 585202
GULBARGA DISTRICT.
4. SRI V RAMANJANAPPA
S/O LATE G VEMANNA
RETD EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO 74/1
I CROSS, 5 MAIN, 5 BLOCK, BSK 3 STAGE
3 PHASE, BANGALORE 560 085
5. SRI B M CHANDRASHEKARAIAH
S/O LATE C MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
ELECTRICAL, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION
HASSAN.
6. SRI T PARTHASARATHY
S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
WORKING AS EXECUTIE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL,
CHAMUNDESHWARI
ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO AND QC O AND M CIRCLE
HASSAN
7. SRI B SHEKAR
S/O R C ARTHUR
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
ELECTRICAL, CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRIC
SUPPLY CO, HOLE NARASIPURA
11
8. SRI R RAMESH
S/O Y S RAMASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL
RT DIVISION, KPTCL
MRS COMPOUND, SHIMOGA
9. SRI C N SUDHINDRA
S/O C N NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
ELECTRICAL, ON DEPUTATION TO
IISC, BANGALORE 560 012
10. SRI K A BOPPAIAH
S/O K P APPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL
TA AND C, KPTCL
MANGALORE.
11. SRI K BOMMALINGAIAH
S/O KAREBOMMANAYAKA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
RETIRED SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, KPTCL
BANNI NAGAR, SIRA TOWN SIRA
TUMKUR
12. SRI B K KUSHALAPPA
S/O B B KARUMBAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KODUGU MAJOR
WORKS, KPTCL, N R MOHALA
MYSORE.
13. SRI T S ANAND
S/O T B SOMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RETD ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
NO 18/58, SUDARSHAN EXTENSION
MADIKERI, KODAGU
14. SMT N SAROJA BAI
W/O C D VELU,
12
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
O/O THE CEE T AND P, KPTCL
KAVERI BHAVAN, BANGALORE
15. SMT H B GAYATHRI
W/O S MANOHAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
REGULATORY AFFAIRS, KPTCL
KAVERI BHAVAN, BANGALORE 9
16. SRI M HIDAYATHULLA
S/O M ABDUL MAJEED
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ( ELECTRICAL)
DOOR NO 1, WARD NO 32, OPPOSITE
LLC COLONY, NEW TRUNK ROAD
CANTONMENT, BELLARY 583 103
17. SRI S MANOHAR
S/O SUBRAYA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
APR, KPTCL, KAVERI BHAVAN
BANGALORE 560 09
18. SRI B P SRINATH
S/O SRI B R PUTTAVEERACHAR
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
ELECTRICAL, RT DIVISION, KPTCL
BELLARY
19. SRI B HONNEGOWDA
S/O CHANNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL )
MW DIVISION, HOLENARASIPURA
BELLARY.
20. SRI B ANANTH KRISHNA
S/O B N V SUBBAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
13
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
TRANSMISSION ZONAL OFFICE, PRASARANA
BHAVAN, KPTCL, FTS COMPOUND
NR MOHALLA, MYSORE 560010
21. SRI S K YAJI
S/O LATE K M YAJI
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
TRANSMISSION CIRCLE OFFICE
KPTCL, PRASARANA BHAVAN FTS COMPOUND
NR MOHALLA,
MYSORE 560010
22. SRI T PRABHAKAR
S/O LATE T C THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL
NR MOHALLA, SUB DIVISION 2
CESC, MYSORE 560010
23. SR K C NITHYANANDA
S/O LATE K S CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
ELECTRICAL, 220 KV STATION
KADAKOLA
MYSORE
24. SRI N NARASIMHEGOWDA
S/O K NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
CITY WORKS CIRCLE, CESC
KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSORE
25. SRI B V PRABHU
S/O N B VEERABASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
TLSS DIVISION, HOOTAGALLI
KPTCL, MYSORE
14
26. SRI N SURESH
S/O LATE H N NAGESH RAO
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL
CORPORATE OFFICE, MESCOM
A B SHETTY CIRCLE, MANGALORE 575001
27. SRI N ANANTH SWAMY
S/O N RAMAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
CHAMARAJNAGAR, EXECUTIVE WORKS
MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, KPTCL
CHAMARAJANAGAR, N R MOHALLA
MYSORE 570007.
28. SRI K L BALAKRISHNA
S/O LATE D LAKSHMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
MANDYA MAJOR WORKS, KPTCL
NR MOHALLA, MYSORE
29. SRI GOPAL
S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)(
O & O CEE TRN ZONE
HASSAN.
30. SRI SATHYANARAYANA H G
S/O LATE GUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
CESC, HASSAN.
31. SRI SATISH CHANDRA HR
S/O RAMA CHADNRA HA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
TL AND SS
HOLENARASIPURA, HASSAN.
32. SRI A VADIRAJA RAO
S/O LATE M R ANANTHARAM
15
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL
RT DIVISION, HASSAN
33. SRI CHIKKALINGAIAH
S/O LINGE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RETD EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
R/AT NO 4406/D, JAYA NIVASA
BANDIGOWDA LAYOUT, MANDYA 571401
34. SRI SRIKATAIAH
S/O JAVANE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RETD ASSISTANT ENGINEER, NO 18, GROUND
FLOOR, 3 CROSS, VVR STREET
GANAPATHIPURA, KONANAKUNTE
BANGALORE 62
35. SRI NUTAKKI BHASKARA RAO
S/O N CHANDRASHEKARA RAO
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
RETD ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
R/AT NO 43/1, 3 CROSS, GR LAYOUT,
NEAR RAJIV GANDHI
DENTAL COLLEGE, CHOLANAGAR, R T NAGAR
BANGALORE 560 032.
36. SRI A VENKANNA BHAT
S/O A HANUMANTHA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
ELE, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION
KPTCL, BELLARY.
37. SRI PAPANNA
S/O K KARIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RETD ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KPTCL, R/AT NO 292, 9 CROSS
CHAMUNDESHWARINAGAR, MANDYA
38. SRI H HOMBALE GOWDA
S/O SRI HOMBALE GOWAD
16
RETD ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
KPTCL, R/AT NO 389, 7 CROSS,
CHAMUNDESHWARINAGAR, MANDYA
39. SRI D NAGARAJA
S/O Y DAMBALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELE
O & M DIVISION, CHANDAPURA, R/AT C-5
KPTCL, OFFICERS COLONY, 5 CROSS
11 MAIN, HAL II STAGE, INDIRANAGAR
40. SRI V PRABHAKAR
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
MAJOR WORKS DIVISION
KPTCL, RAICHUR. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI A MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. M/S KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION
KAVERI BHAVAN
BANGALORE
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
2. GENERAL MANAGER
(ADM AND HR)
M/S KARNATAKA POWER
TRANSMISSION CORPORATION
BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARIKRISHNA HOLLA ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI BC PRABHAKAR FOR M/S BHOOPALAM LAW
ASSOCIATES FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUNGED APPENDIX I TO ANN-A, IE, BOARD
ORDER OF THE R1, DT.9.7.77 AND ALSO FURTHER
17
QUASH THE CLARIFICATION FOUND AT ANN-B, ISSUED
BY THE R1, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY DT.7.4.78 TO THE
CHIEF ENGINEER (ELECL) K.E.B, BANGALORE AND
FURTHER ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRETION DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT BOARD TO REFIX THE SALARY OF THE
PETITIONERS BY STARTING THE SALARIES OF THE
PETITIONERS AT THE MINIMUM OF THEIR PAY SCALE
FORM THE DATE OF ENTRY INTO SERVICE BY
SANCTIONING TO THE PETITIONES THE INCREMENT THAT
WAS DEPRIVED OF DURING THE PBOBATIONARY PERIOD,
AND TO GRANT ALL OTHER FURTHER CONSEQUENTIAL
RELIEF EMANATING FROM THE RESTORING THE SAID
INCREMENT, AND GIVE THE SAME BENEFITS TO THE
PETITIONERS AS WERE GIVEN TO MR.PRASANNA KUMAR
VIDE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DT.6.3.08, FOUND AT
ANN-J ALLOW THIS WP WITH COSTS AND GRANT SUCH
OTHER RELIEFS.
IN WRIT PETITION NO: 8458/2008 (S-RES):
BETWEEN:
1. SRI K T KARISIDDAIAH,
S/O SRI THOTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
CORPORATE OFFICE, MESCOM
MANGALORE.
2. SOMASHEKARAPPA,
S/O T THIRTHAPPA
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
MESCOM TRAINING INSTITUTE
KAVOOR, MANGALORE.
3. M JAYASURYA,
S/O M LINGAPPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
MECOM, O & M DIVISION,
18
UDUPI.
4. M GURURAJ SUVARNA,
S/O LATE M SUBBA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) (O),
MESCOM, ZONAL OFFICE,
MANGALORE.
5. B S SRIKANTA MURTHY,
S/O S SUBBARAYA
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) (O)
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
MESCOM, O & M DIVISION,
PUTTUR.
6. A RAJACHARI,
S/O A ESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE),
220 KV TL & SS DIVISION,
KEMAR, KARKALA, UDUPI
7. S CHANDRASHEKAR,
S/O H S SHESHADRI
AGED ABOUT 54 EYARS,
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
33, K.V.STATIONS, CIRCLE OFFICE,
MESCOM, SHIMOGA.
8. T RAMACHANDRA,
S/O R A THIRTHA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
TL & SS STATION, KPTCL,
TALAGUPPA.
9. K M KRISHNA MURTHY,
S/O K MORESHWAR
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
(RETIRED EX. ENGINEER, KPTCL)
15/2, "NIHARIKA",
N.R.PURA ROAD, NEAR M.R.S
19
VIDYANAGARA, SHIMOGA.
10. S R SRINATH ,
S/O S V RAGHOTHAMA RAO
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
TL & SS DIVISION, SHIMOGA KPTCL,
2ND FLOOR, SHARTHAMANSION,
GANDHINAGAR MAIN ROAD,
SHIMOGA-577 201
11. K M SURESH,
S/O K N MANJUNATHA RAO
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
M.W.DIVISION, KPTCL,
CHICKMAGALUR DIST.,
SHIMOGA.
12. M RAMAMURTHY.
S/O M NARASIMHACHAR
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC)
MESCOM, KADUR DIVISION,
KADUR, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT.
13. A SHANKARA NARAYANA,
S/O LATE K VENKATARAMANA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
RTD., EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC)
SRI.RAGHAVENDRA NILAYA, NARAYANAPPA
LAYOUT, BYEPASS ROAD, VIDYANAGARA,
SHIMOGA-577 203
14. J S SHIVASHANKARA BHATTA
S/O J.SATHYANARAYAN BHATTA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (O),
O & M CIRCLE MESCOM,
BALRAJ URS ROAD,
SHIMOGA
15. ETI NEELAPPA,
20
S/O ETI BEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RETD. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
H.NO.47, 36TH CROSS,
LINGARAJANAGAR SOUTH,
HUBLI-580 031.
16. H HOMBALE GOWDA,
S/O LATE CHANNE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RETD. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
INDIRA NILAYA, D.NO.KL 254,
2ND CROSS, MARIGOWDA LAYOUT,
MANDYA CITY. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI A MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION
KAVERI BHAVAN,
BANGALORE
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
2. GENERAL MAANGER (ADM & HR)
M/S KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION, BANGALORE ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B C PRABHAKAR FOR M/S BHOOPALAM LAW
ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED APPENDIX I TO ANNEXURE-A i.e.,
BOARD OF ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN NO.
KEB/BBO.7/76-77 DT. 9.7.77 AND ALSO FURTHER QUASH
THE CLARIFICATION FOUND AT ANNEXURE-B ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT NO.1 THROUGH ITS SECRETARY IN NO.
BOP.18/77-78 DT. 7.4.78 TO THE CHIEF ENGINEER
(ELECL). K.E.B., BANGALORE AND FURTHER ISSUE WRIT
OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER OR
DIRECTION DIRECTING THE REPONDENT BOARD TO
21
REFIX THE SALARY OF THE PETITIONERS BY STARTING
THE SALARIES OF THE PETITIONERS AT THE MINIMUM
OF THEIR PAY SCALE FROM THE DATE OF ENTRY INTO
SERVICE BY SANCTIONING TO THE PETTIIONERS THE
INCREMENT THAT WAS DEPRIED OF DURING THE
PROBATIONARY PERIOD, AND GRANT ALL OTHER
CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF EMANTING FROM THE
RESTORING THE SAID INCREMENT, AND GIVE THE SAME
BENEFITS TO THE PETITONERS AS WERE GIVEN TO
MR.PRASANNA KUMAR VIDE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DT.
6.3.2008 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-J.
IN WRIT PETITION NO 8834/2008 (S-RES):
BETWEEN
1. SRI B KARIYAPPA,
S/O SRI BUTHANNA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
RETD ASST EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER ELE, TANK ROAD, MARUTHINAGAR
TUMKUR 572 102.
2. SRI K T MUDALAGIRIYAPPA
S/O LATE SRI CHIKKATHIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
RETD EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (NON CADRE)
VENU, 4 MAIN, ASHOKNAGAR
TUMKUR 572103.
3. SRI B KARIYAPPA
S/O SRI BHEEMANNA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RETD ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
NO 14, MATHRUDARSHINI, 2 CROSS
ASHOKNAGAR, TUMKUR 572103.
4. SRI H S VEERAPPA,
S/O SRI SANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
RETD ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
NAMMANE, II BLOCK, 4 MAIN, I CROSS
22
KUVEMPUNAGAR, TUMKUR
5. SRI H G LAKSHMANAPPA,
S/O SRI GIRIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YERAS
RETD ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ( BESCOM)
MATHRUSHREE, BEHIND GIRLS HOSTEL
VEDAVATHI NAGAR, HIRIYUR
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
6. SRI G HANUMANTHARAYA,
S/O SRI GUJJARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RETD ASST EXECUTIVE (ELE)
BESCOM SRINIVASA NILAYA
NEAR TELEPHONE TOWER T R NAGAR
CHALLAKERE 577522, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
7. SRI A N KANTHA REDDY
S/O SRI A NARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOTU 60 Y AERS
RETD ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BESCOM/CTA, JCR EXTENSION
5 CROSS EAST
CHITRADURGA.
8. SRI G NARAYANA
S/O SRI V K GOPALAN
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC)
CO & M CIRCLE, BESCOM, KOLAR
NO 60, SWARA, I FLOOR, BEHIND
PRANAM RESIDENCY 4 CROSS, SECTOR B
AMRUTHNAGAR, SAHAKARNAGAR POST
BANGALORE 560 092
9. SMT CLETA FERNANDES PRABHU
D/O LATE FERNANDES PRABHU
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC)
MARYLYN, BIJEY, MANGALORE 575004
10. SRI K L SATHYANARAYANA RAO
S/O SRI K G LAKSHMANA RAO
23
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RETD ASSISTANT ENGINEER
DOOR NO 12-65/3C, JAYANAGAR
THADAMBAIL, SURATHKAL
MANGALORE 575014.
11. SRI SADASHIVA SHARMA
S/O SRI SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RETD EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC)ANUGRAHA
VIDYANAGAR, NEHRUNAGAR POST
PUTTUR 574203, D.K.
12. SRI T ASWATH REDDY
S/O LATE SRI MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC)
NO 44, BRINDAVANA 2 CROSS
SRIRAMPURA
BANGALORE 21 ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI : A MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION
CAUVERY BHAVAN
BANGALORE
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. GENERAL MANAGER
(ADM AND HR)
M/S KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION,
BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B C PRABHAKAR ADVOCATE FRO BHOOPALAM
LAW ASSOCIATES)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED APPENDIX I TO ANN-A, I.E,
BOARD ORDER OF THE R1, IN DT.9.7.77 AND ALSO
24
FURTHER QUASH THE CLARIFICATION FOUND AT ANN-B,
ISSUED BY THE R1, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY IN
NO.BOP.18/77-78 DT.7.4.78 TO THE CHIEF ENGINEER
(ELECL.) K.E.B BANGALORE AND FURTHER ISSUE WRIT
OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER OR
DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT BOARD TO
REFIX THE SALARY OF THE PETITIONERS BY STARTING
THE SALARIES OF THE PETITIONERS AT THE MINIMUM
OF THEIR PAY SCALE FROM THE DATE OF ENTRY IN TO
SERVICE BY SANCTIONING TO THE PETITIONERS THE
INCREMENT THAT WAS DEPRIVED OF DURING THE
PROBATIONARY PERIOD, AND TO GRANT ALL OTHER
FURTHER CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF EMANATING FROM
THE RESTORING THE SAID INCREMENT, AND GIVE THE
SAME BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONES AS WERE GIVEN TO
MR.PRASANNA KUMAR VIDE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM
DT.6.3.08, FOUND AT ANN-J ALLOW THIS WP WITH COSTS
AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS.
IN WRIT PETITION NO: 9729/2008 (S-RES):
BETWEEN:
1. SRI T S NARAYAN
S/O SRI SHESHANNA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER, KPRCL, AND R/AT NO 722, 2ND B
CROSS, KORAMANGALA 8TH BLOCK
BANGALORE-95.
2. SRI DESAI MURALI ,
SON OF D D RAO
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
(ELCL)HESCOM, ZONAL OFFICE, HUBLI AND
R/AT NO 122, 6TH CROSS, GOVINAYAKANAHALI
KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, BANGALORE-78.
3. SRI H P SHIVANNA,
S/OF SRI PUTTANANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
25
FORMERLY WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
(ELCL)BESCOM, AND R/AT NO 475, I FLOOR
KHB COLONY, V BLOCK, KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE-95.
4. SRI R SUDARSHANA SINGH,
SON OF R KRISHNA SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
(ELECL)KPTCL R/AT NO 100, 5TH CROSS
MUNESHWARA LAYOUT, NEAR SEA COLLEGE
AYYAPPA NAGAR,DEVASANDRA MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE - 36.
5. SRI K RAVI KUMAR
S/OF SRI K NARAYANA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
(ELECL) KPTCL R/AT NO 4 AND 5
PANNAGA, SIDDIVINAYAKA LAYOUT
BANGALORE-85.
6. SRI H A BASAVARAJU
S/O SRI HALEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KPTCL R/AT NO 3, I MAIN, BASAWESHWARA
LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-40. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI M SUBRAMANYA BHAT ADVOCATE FOR
M/S SUBBARAO AND COMPANY, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED
REP BY THE CHAIRMAN
AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
CAUVERY BHAVAN
BANGALORE-01.
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER
HR AND ADM, KPTCL
26
KAVERI BHAVAN
BANGALORE-9. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: B.C PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR BHOOPALAM
LAW ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO FIX THE BASIC PAY OF
THE PETIITONERS AT RS.720/- FROM THE DATE OF
THEIR INITIAL APPOINTMENT, IN TERMS OF THE
DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
WP.NO.12230/1987 DT.14.10.1998, WA.NO.5607/1998
DT.10.12.1999 AND CA.NO.7763/01, DT.5.12.07, BY THE
HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, (ANNS-D, E AND F
RESPECTIVELY).
IN WRIT PETITION NO: 9730/2008 (S-RES):
BETWEEN:
1. SRI JINENDRAPPA,
S/O SRI C G DEVARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(ELCL)
KPTCL, AND R/AT NO.488/27
I FLOOR, 13TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN
BANGALORE-27.
2. SRI MOHAMMED IMTIYAZUDDIN
S/O SRI. MOHAMMED SIRAJUDDIN
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BESCOM, AND R/AT NO.142, 4TH CROSS
J.H.B.C.S. LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR
BANGALORE-78.
3. SRI RAM SETTY,
S/O SRI KRISHNA SETTY
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KPTCL, AND R/AT NO.13, 'SUKRIT'
NEAR VIKAS SCHOOL, 4THMAIN
27
4TH BLOCK, B.S.K. 3RD STAGE
BANGALORE-85.
4. SRI G C HANUMANTHAPPA,
S/O SRI G CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER (ELCL), KEB, AND R/AT
CHANNAKESHAVA NILAYA
SAVALANG ROAD
SHIMOGA-577 203.
5. SRI ADINARAYANA REDDY,
S/O SRI K M NARAYANA REDY
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KPTCL, AND R/AT NO.228
NANJUNDESHWARA NILAYA, 40 FEET LINK ROAD
VIDYAAGAR, NEAR PUTTANJANEYA TEMPLE
TUMKUR-572 103.
6. SRI K G MAHABALESHWARA,
S/O SRI A GIRIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEAS
FORMERLY WORING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KPTCL, AND R/AT NO.54, SRI.MANJUANTHA
NILAYA, NEAR CHETANA SCHOOL
2ND STAGE, 2ND CROSS, VINOBA NAGAR
SHIMOGA-577 201. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI M SUBRAMANYA BHAT ADVOCATE FOR M/S
SUBBARAO AND COMPANY, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED
REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
CAUVERY BHAVAN
BANGALORE-1
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER
(HR AND ADM.), KPTCL
28
KAVERI BHAVAN
BANGALORE-9. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARIKRISHNA S HOLLA, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO FIX THE BASIC PAY OF
THE PETITIONERS AT RS 720/- FROM THE DATE OF
THEIR INITIAL APPOINTMENT, IN TERMS OF THE
DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT
PETITION NO. 12230/1987 DT. 14.10.1998; WA NO.
5607/1998 DT. 10.12.1999 AND CA NO. 7763/2001 DT.
5.12.2007 BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT,
ANNEXURES D, E AND F RESPECTIVELY.
IN WRIT PETITION NO: 11798/2008 (S-RES) :
BETWEEN:
S NARAYANA REDDY,
S/O LATE SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT NO 541,
20TH MAIN, 22ND CROSS, JUDICIAL LAYOUT
GKVK POST, BANGALORE-56. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI R L PATIL ADVOCATE FOR M/S PATIL AND PATIL,
ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD., CAUVERY BHAWAN
BANGALORE,
R/BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. GENERAL MANAGER (HR & ADM)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD., CAUVERY BHAWAN
BANGALORE.
29
3. MANAGING DIRECTOR
BESCOM, KR CIRCLE
BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B C PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR M/S
BHOOPALAM LAW ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES FOR R2 &
R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT
THE RESPONDENT TO FIX PROPER MINIMUM OF TIME
SCALE PAY THAT IS 720-30-780-50[1030-60-1330-75-1750]
WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATE OF HIS APPOINTMENT
WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.
IN WRIT PETITION NOS. 40258 - 40260/2010 (S-RES):
BETWEEN:
1. SRI P N HANUMANTHAIAH,
S/O SRI NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELEC.), O/O THE
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE), NO.2
SUB-DIVISION, BESCOM, HOUSING BOARD COLONY
VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-40 & R/A NO.39,
T S GOVINDAPPA ROAD, T SEETHARAMAIAH LAYOUT,
NEAR CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE,
YESHWANTHAPUR,
BANGALORE - 560 054.
2. SRI. R N SRINIVASAN,
S/O LATE NARAYANACHARI
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER(ELEC), NO.2 SUB-DIVISION, BESCOM
HOUSING BOARD COLONY, VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 40.
& R/A NO.7, 2ND MAIN ROAD, GANDHIGRAMA
OPP TO MALLESHWARAM, RAILWAY STATION,
BANGALORE - 560 021.
3. SMT. PRABHAVATHI,
30
W/O SRI. H LOKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEAS
PRESENTLY WORKING AS TYPIST
O/O THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
BESCOM STORE, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE
& R/AT NO. 16, 12TH MAIN ROAD, SHIVANAGAR,
BANGALORE-10. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI N DEVARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD
(BOARD CONSTITUTED UNDER ELECTRICITY ACT
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
CAUVERY BHAVAN
BANGALORE-560001.
2. KARNATAKA VIDYUTH PRASARANA NIGAMA LIMITED
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
(ADMINISTRATIVE AND HUMAN RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT), K P T C L, CAUVERY BHAVAN
BANGALORE-560001. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P S DINESH KUMAR ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,
PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER,
BANGALORE DATED 12.12.08 MARKED AT ANNEX-E
ISSUED BY THE R2 MANAGING DIRECTOR ONLY IN SO
FAR IT RELATES TO DENIAL OF INCREMENTAL ARREARS
FROM THE DATE OF ITS ENTITLEMENTS TO TILL THE
DATE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND WITH A FURTHER
DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY INCREMENTS
AND ARREARS, TOGETHER WITH 18% OF INTEREST FOR
THE DELAYED PAYMENT.
31
IN WRIT PETITION NOS. 17792-96/2010 (S-RES):
BETWEEN
1. SMT H LATHA,
D/O SRI K B SHIVALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS OFFICER
O/O THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
(ELEC), NO.7,SUB-DIVISION, J C NAGAR,
BESCOM, BANGALORE-86, & R/A "VISHNU PRIYA"
NO.48/A, 9TH MAIN,4TH BLOCK, R NAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 010.
2. SRI PRABHAKAR DEVANA DIXIT,
S/O LATE SUBRAMANYA
DIXIT, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASST EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER (ELEC)
O/O THE ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC),
NO.2, SUB-DIVISION, BESCOM, HOUSING BOARD
COLONY, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE, & R/A NO
2, MARUTHI NAGAR, BEHIND KABBALAMMA TEMPLE
BYADARAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 091.
3. SRI K L SEETHARAMAIAH,
S/O SRI K S LAKSHMAN RAO
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS OVERSEER,
O/O THE ASST EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER (ELEC), BESCOM, C3 SUB-DIVISION
MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560010 & R/A NO.
5700, 15TH MAIN, BHARAT NAGAR, 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE 560 091.
4. SRI N GOVINDAIAH,
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (ELEC)
32
O/O THE ASST EXE.ENGINEER (ELEC),NO.2 SUB-
DIVISION
BESOM, HOUSING BOARD COLONY, VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE, & R/A NO.36/A P M ENCLAVE, NEAR
MOTHER DAIRY CIRCLE, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BANGALORE - 560 106.
5. SRI VENKATAPPA,
S/O LATE DODDAVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RETIRED ASST
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC), O/O THE
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC), BESCOM, O & M
SU-DIVISION, GOWRIBIDANUR & R/A NO.1136,
OLD CI OFFICE ROAD, MADHAVANAGAR,
GOWRIBIDANUR,
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI N DEVARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD
(BOARD CONSITITUTED UNDER ELECTRICITY
ACT), REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN, CAUVERY BHAVA
BANGALORE-560001.
2. KARNATAKA VIDYUTH PRASARANA NIGAMA LIMITED
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
(ADMINISTRATIVE AND HUMAN RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT)
KPTCL CAUVERY BHAVAN
BANGALORE-560001. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GURUDEV I GACHCHINAMATH ADVOCATE FOR R1
& 2)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,
PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BANGALORE
DATED 12.12.2008 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-E ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT MANAGING DIRECTOR, ONLY IN
SO FAR IT RELATES TO DENIAL OF INCREMENTAL
ARREARS FROM THE DATE OF ITS ENTITLEMENTS TO
33
TILL THE DATE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND WITH A
FURTHER DRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY
INCREMENTS AND ARREARS, TOGETHER WITH 18% OF
INTEREST FOR THE DELAYED PAYMENT.
IN WRIT PETITION NOS: 11300-302/2011 (S-RES):
BETWEEN:
1. SRI D. SWAMY GOWDA,
S/O LATE DEVEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC) CESCOM
NAGAMANGALA SUB DIVISION
NAGAMANGALA R/AT HOUSE NO 19,
2ND CROSS GROUP 1 KHB COLONY HOOTAGALLI,
MYSORE -18.
2. SMT PAPAMMA,
LATE PANDURANGA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
RETIRED SANITARY WORKER
O/O THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC)
BESCOM, NORTH DIVISON RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE .
3. SRI B C RAJASHEKAR,
S/O LATE B N CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
RETIRED ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELEC)
O/O THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC)
KPTCL SRS PEENYA, PEENYA BANGALORE
R/AT NO 40 17TH CROSS 12TH B MAIN
MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE 03 . ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI N DEVARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD,
(BOARD CONSTITUED UNDER ELECTRICITY ACT)
REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN
34
CAUVERY BHAVAN
BANGALORE 560 001 .
2. KARNATAKA VIDYUTH PRASARANA NIGAMA LTD.,
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
(ADMINISTRATIVE AND HUMAN RESEOURCES
DEVELOPMENT) KPTCL CAUVERY BHAVAN
BANGALORE 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B C PRABHAKAR ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI
GURUDEV IN GACHCHIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS & QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT.12.12.08 MARKED AT ANN-E,
ISSUED BY THE R2 MANAGING DIRECTOR, ONLY IN SO
FAR IT RELATES TO DENIAL OF INCREMENTAL ARREARS
FROM THE DATE OF ITS ENTITLEMENTS TO TLL THE
DATE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER & WITH A FURTHER
DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY INCREMENTS
& ARREARS, TOGETHER WITH 18% OF INTEREST FOR
THE DELAYED PAYMENT.
IN WRIT PETITION NOS.22142-145/2011 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI NARASIMHAIAH,
S/O SRI PARAMESWARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
SENIOR ASSISTANT
O/O THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC.)
N4 SUB-DIVISION, PEENYA,
BANGALORE-560058
R/A NO. 1093, DEFENCE COLONY, BAGALAGUNTEE
NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE-560073.
2. SMT. LAKKAMMA V,
W/O SRI B H LAKSHAMANA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
SENIOR ASSISTANT
O/O THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC.)
35
BESCOM, PEENYA DIVISION
BANGALORE-560010
R/A NO. 5238/3, SUBHAS NAGAR,
NEAR SWAUSILK FACTORY, NELAMANGALA TOWN-
562123
3. SMT. P LAKSHMINARASAMMA,
D/O SRI PAPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
SENIOR ASSISTANT
O/O THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC.)
BESCOM, PEENYA DIVISION
3RD STAGE, NEAR UCO BANK, BANGALORE-58
& R/A NO. 881, KAILASAM 3RD CROSS,
KEMPEGOWDANAGAR, T DASARAHALLI, BLORE-58
4. SRI S N BYRASETTY,
S/O LATE NANJASETTY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
JUNIOR ENGINEER (ELE)
O/O THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC.)
BESCOM, PEENYA DIVISION, 3RD PHASE
6TH MAIN, PIA PEENYA, BANGALORE-560058
& R/A NO. 8198, "SREE BYRAVESWARA NILAYA
PATEL CHANNAPPA BADAVANE,
NELAMANGALA-562 123. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI N DEVARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD
(BOARD CONSTITUTED UNDER ELECTRICITY ACT
REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN
CAUVERY BHAVAN
BANGALORE-560001.
2. KARNATAKA VIDYUTH PRASARANA NIGAMA LIMITED
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
(ADMINISTRATIVE AND HUMAN RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT)
K P T C L., CAUVERY BHAVAN
BANGALORE-560001. ... RESPONDENTS
36
(BY SRI B C PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,
PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING
NO. DT 12.12.08 MARKED AT ANNEX-E ISSUED BY THE
2ND RES. MANAGING DIRECTOR, ONLY IN SO FAR IT
RELATES TO DENIAL OF INCREMENTAL ARREARS FROM
THE DATE OF ITS INTITLEMENTS TO TILL THE DATE OF
THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND WITH A FURTHER
DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY INCREMENTS
AND ARREARS TO GETHER WITH 18% OF INTEREST FOR
THE DELAYED PAYMENT.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, N. KUMAR J., MADE
THE FOLLOWING: -
ORDER
These batch of writ petitions are listed before us by an order dated 24.11.2011 of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, at the request of the learned Single Judge, who has referred the following points for consideration to be decided by a larger bench.
(1) Whether the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.21602-21610/2009 dated 11.1.2011 in M.G. Narasihmamurthy and Others vs Karnataka Electricity Board and another which has followed the earlier order in Writ Petition No.21586 - 21599/2009 in 37 Kempanna and other vs Karnataka Electricity Board dated 03.12.2010, have been correctly decided in the light of their being a finality to the claim of similarly placed petitioner in Writ Appeal No.2014/1991 c/w 2438-2451/1991 dated 03.08.1995?
(2) Whether the Officers/employees would be entitled to the benefit that was granted to Prasanna Kumar by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.5607/1998 and affirmed by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal 7763/2001?
(3) Whether the Officer/Employees can be denied the benefit in view of the Supreme Court having rejected the impleading application, by similarly placed officers in the case of Prasanna Kumar when they had approached the Supreme Court, on the ground that their application was belated ?
2. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.4743-4748/2010, 8624/2007, 8625/2007, 40258-40260/2010 17792- 17796/2010, 11300-11302/2011 and 22142-145/2011 are some of them workmen and most of them are 38 officers, and the petitioners in W.P.Nos.6638/2008, 7356/2008, 8458/2008, 8834/2008, 9729/2008, 9730/2008, 11798/2008 are all officers, who are working in the erstwhile KEB. The erstwhile KEB had framed regulations known as Recruitment and Promotion Regulations 1960, in exercise of power under Section 79 (c) of the Electricity Supplies Act, 1948. Regulation 8 prescribes that all appointments by direct recruitment shall be on probation for one year or for such term as may be provided for in the regulation specifically made for the said purpose. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are appointed subsequent to 8.3.1977. The employees - Union representing the workmen had submitted a memorandum of demand which was admitted in Conciliation Proceedings, a Settlement was arrived at under Section 12(3) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 8.3.1977. It was agreed that the Board was at liberty to fix the pay and allowances admissible during the period of probation in case of appointment to various posts on or after 1.4.1976 against the direct recruitment quota. 39 Pursuant to the settlement, the Board issued an order dated 23.4.1977 surveying the revision of pay scales, allowances etc., as follows :-
"In respect of the employees appointed on or after 8.3.1977 against the Direct Recruitment quota, wherever probation is prescribed, their pay will be as per Annexure to the order."
and the annexure contains the following note:
"In cases where pay during probation is not mentioned, it should be taken that whenever probation is prescribed for a post, then the pay during probation for such a post should be fixed at one increment lower than the minimum of the scale. This order is deemed to have come into effect from 8.3.1977."
Pursuant to the said order the service regulations were amended to the following effect:-
"During the period of probation the employee shall be entitled to pay at one increment less than the minimum of the time scale of the 40 post to which he is appointed. After declaration of satisfactory completion of probation by a competent authority, the employee will be started on the minimum of the time scale of the post from the date of such satisfactory completion of probation.
3. It was found that as many as 32 workmen, who have been covered under the settlement were appointed after March 1977 for various posts. They preferred writ petitions before this court claiming that the Board by not providing minimum starting salary to the probationers had acted in violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The said writ petition 13113/1983 was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this court holding that the probationers and regular employees performed the same duties and in accordance with the Doctrine of Equal Pay for Equal Work, the discrimination in payment of initial time scales of grade to the probationers is illegal. On that finding, the learned Single Judge struck down the Board's decision and directed the management to re-fix the salary in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the 41 judgment of the learned Single Judge, the Board preferred writ appeals before the Division Bench in W.A.No.2438-2451/1999 and connected matters. The Division Bench held that the probationers cannot claim pay on par with the regular employees and the nature of appointment of a probationer would be different and distinct from that of a regular employee. It was also observed that regular employees are entitled to a large number of advantages depending on the number of years of service and their tenure of service. It was also observed that workmen were not entitled to those privileges unless they completed the probationary period and their work was found satisfactory. With these observations the Division Bench allowed the appeals, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. The said order of the Division Bench has attained finality.
However, along with the said batch of writ petitions, W P No.12230/1987 filed by one Sri N.G. Prasanna Kumar appointed as Junior Engineer in August 1977 was also clubbed as in the aforesaid batch of writ appeals the Division Bench was considering the case of workmen 42 who are bound by a settlement reached under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and to give effect to the said settlement, the Board has passed the impugned order. The Division Bench held as the said Prasanna Kumar is not a workmen he is not bound by the settlement, as his case has to be decided on its merits separately. Therefore, the order passed in his writ petition by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition was also set aside, but the matter was remitted back to the learned Single Judge for fresh disposal.
Learned Single Judge interpreting the order issued by the respondent fixing the pay scale after revision of pay scales was of the view, that the pay revision has been effected to benefit the employees and therefore, an interpretation has to be placed which will be beneficial to them and serve to further the purpose for which the pay revision has been effected. It is not shown that any statute exists which contemplates the fixation of a lower emoluments to probationers. On the contrary, if we peruse Annexures I to D, it is only in three cases, that a different pay is fixed for the probationers and in all 43 other cases, it has to be presumed that Clause 4 of the order will apply. As such no illegality will be caused, if the minimum in the pay scale is paid to the probationers in the category of Junior Engineers in terms of Clause 4 of the order. Besides, if Clause 4 of Annexure D is ignored while interpreting the pay revision order, it will amount to amending various conditions accompanying the pay revision and would deny the benefit that it intended to extend to a large section of employees covered by the order. The schedule to the order Annexure-D cannot prevail over the dispensation made by the order nor can it denude the benefit under the order. He therefore, proceeded to pass the following order :-
"14. In the result the petitioner succeeds. A Junior Engineer (now Assistant Engineer) on probation is eligible to start on the minimum in the revised scale of pay as revised by Annexure D order. In other words, he will be entitled to be paid Rs.720/- as against Rs.690/- as indicated in Annexure I to Annexure D. As Annexure E is contrary to 44 what is stated above, and is issued only by the ministerial officer of the respondent, the same is invalid and set aside. The writ petition is allowed."
4. Aggrieved by the same the Board preferred an appeal in W.A.No.5607/1998. The Appellate Court did not fully agree with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench held it is a fact that fixation of pay of a probationer is different from that of a regular officer. Regular employee is entitled for large number of advantages and other service benefits, whereas the probationer is not entitled to those advantages unless the probationary period is completed, work is found satisfactory and there is no right to claim continuation in service. But proceeded to grant the relief on the ground that when the revised pay scale specifically applies to probationers also, there is nothing wrong or illegal in applying the same to probationers also. As per clause IV probationers appointed on or after 1.4.1976 shall be started in the minimum of the revised pay scale and difference if any between the existing emoluments 45 and revised emoluments shall be protected. In the present case, the pay scales are revised after the respondent was selected and he was appointed. The appointment order is dated 9.7.1988. Therefore, he is entitled for revision of pay scale. Aggrieved by this order the Board preferred a special leave petition to the apex court. Leave was granted and the appeal was numbered as Civil Appeal No.7763/2001. During the pendency of the said appeal 53 officers who are similarly placed as that of N.G. Prasanna Kumar filed applications for impleadment in the civil appeal before the Apex Court claiming the benefit, which is granted to N.G. Prasanna Kumar by this Court. The said appeal was heard and the Apex Court declined to interfere with the orders passed by this Court in exercise of its discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, because a very small amount was involved in the matter. Therefore, the appeal came to be dismissed. They also dismissed all the impleading applications on the ground that they have approached this Court belatedly. However, it was made clear the question of law is left open. After the 46 disposal of the Writ Appeal the Board extended the benefit to Prasanna Kumar paying him arrears for the entire period and fixing the pay scale as directed. It is after disposal of the appeal in the aforesaid manner by the Apex Court, these impleading applicants, whose applications came to be rejected on the ground that it is belated and also those officers, who had not approached the Court till then have chosen to file these writ petitions before the Court seeking identical relief on the basis of the order of the learned Single Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court.
5. During the pendency of these writ petitions, before these two proceedings attained finality, after filing of some of the writ petitions probably the Board took note of the two set of judgments, where the workmen were denied the benefit, whereas the officers were granted the benefit and took a decision to extend the benefit both to workmen as well as to the officers alike. Consequently they gave a notional fixation of pay from the date of 47 their appointment, but granted the monetary benefit from 1.12.2008. In other words, the arrears payable to them from the date of appointment till 1.12.2008 was denied to them. Even after extending the said benefit some of the petitioners, have approached this Court claiming arrears.
The learned counsel for the petitioners contend that when once this Court has placed an interpretation on Clause IV of the order as well as appendix to the said Clause and held the officers are entitled to the benefit of fixation of pay scales from the date of their appointment, the Board ought to have extended the said benefit to all officers, who are similarly placed, whether they approach the Court or not. When the said benefit was not extended in spite of a Court order and when they were constrained to approach the Court, it cannot be said that they have approached the Court belatedly and they are not entitled to pay fixation in like terms and that they are entitled to arrears of such pay fixation. Though 53 officers filed an application before the Apex Court seeking impleadment and the same was 48 rejected on the ground that they have approached the Court belatedly that does not take away their right to file a writ petition claiming the benefit, which this Court has extended in the case of Prasanna Kumar. It is recurring cause of action. There is no question of bar or time limit to file the writ petitions and therefore, it was submitted that all these writ petitions are to be allowed granting not only pay fixation but the arrears as claimed by them. Though now the Board has passed an order fixing their pay in terms of the revised pay scale granting benefit from the date of appointment, as arrears are not granted from 1.12.2008 they are entitled to arrears. In spite of several judgments holding that there is no bar of limitation, that every person similarly placed, who have not approached the court for granting relief and even if belatedly such approach is made, on the ground of delay and laches, such benefit cannot be denied. In the alternative it is submitted that assuming that the writ petitions are filed nearly after lapse of 10 years and recovery of money is barred by limitation, they are entitled to atleast three years arrears and 49 therefore, appropriate orders are to be passed granting the said relief.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Board submitted that the interpretation placed by the management is accepted by the Court, insofar the workmen are concerned. That interpretation did not find favour when it came to the officers. Both the orders have attained finality. In order to have peace in the establishment, the Board has taken decision to extend the benefit even to the workmen, who are held to be not entitled to in law and also extended the benefit to the employees who were under probationary period from the date of appointment. However, no arrears were paid to them. Similarly, even officers are extended the said benefit. In respect of the order passed by this Court, several persons had approached the court belatedly and the Supreme Court has not decided the question of law finally, and has left the same to be decided by this Court in these proceedings. They are justified in denying the arrears and therefore, he 50 submits as the Board has already granted the pay fixation to them, nothing is left to be considered. The prayer in the writ petitions is complied with. But insofar as the arrears is concerned they are not entitled to and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed to that extent.
7. In the light of the aforesaid facts and rival contentions, we have to decide the aforesaid questions of law, referred to us. What prompted the learned Single Judge to refer this matter to a Larger Bench in another batch of writ petitions filed by officers in W.P.No.21586 - 21599/2009 is that a learned Single Judge following the judgment in N.G. Prasanna Kumar's case held those petitioners are entitled to not only pay fixation but also arrears from the date of their initial appointment. The said order of the learned Single Judge was followed by another learned Single Judge in W.P.No.21602 - 21610/2009 (S-R) disposed of on 11.01.2011. The learned Single Judge was of the view, that when the claim of the workmen is finally decided by 51 this Court, then learned Single Judges were not justified in granting any relief contrary to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court. Further he took note of the judgment of the Apex Court in Prasanna Kumar's case where the Apex Court declined to grant the relief to 53 impleading applicants, which is granted to Prasanna Kumar and also dismissed their applications on the ground that it is belated. Therefore, he was of the view, that in the light of the aforesaid undisputed facts in the form of judicial pronouncement the question of blindly following the decision of Prasanna Kumar's case and granting relief to these petitioners would not arise, at any rate, it requires consideration by a larger Bench and that is how these writ petitions are before us.
8. Re - Point No.1: In the case of workmen in W.A.No.2014/1991 and connected matters which was decided on 3.8.1995 the Division Bench of this court held as under :-
"The learned Single Judge was in error in referring to the two decisions where the principle of equal work for equal pay is 52 applied. The learned Judge with respect overlooked that the principle was applied in caes where the same set of employees were discriminated and not in cases where the employees belong to different class. The reference to decision reported in A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 2342 (DAILY R.C. LABOUR, P & T, Department Vs. UNION OF INDIA) by the learned Single Judge is not correct. The Supreme Court observed in that case that a State cannot deny the minimum pay in the pay scales to regularly employed workmen, even though the Government may not be compelled to extend all the benefits enjoyed to all regularly recruited employees. The question arose before the Supreme Court as some of the regularly recruited workmen were employed on less than the minimum pay scales. The observation made by the Supreme Court cannot be imported while examining the case of probationers in contradiction to the regular employees. It also cannot be overlooked that the Board Order dated April 22, 1977 was passed in pursuance of settlement reached between the employees union and the appellant board. The settlement specifically authorises the Board to fix the scales of the 53 probationers and which can be different from the scales of the regular employees. The Board in pursuance of the settlement passed the order on April 22, 1977 and the Service Regulations were accordingly amended. We do not find any infirmity in the action of the appellant - Board and the challenge to the Board order and Service Regulations was without any merit. The attention of the learned Judge was not invited to the distinction between the probationer and regular employees and that led to an error in holding that Article 14 of the Constitution was attracted to the facts of the case."
In the end the order passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside and the writ petitions were dismissed. It is submitted that this judgment was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judges, who have passed the said order. If only this judgment had been brought to their notice, the last paragraph in the aforesaid order would show that the case of Prasanna Kumar would stand on a different footing from the rest of the cases of the workmen, which was decided by the Division Bench and in fact the learned Single Judges have followed the 54 principle laid down in Prasanna Kumar's case, which has no application to the case of workmen. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench which is binding, the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judges in the aforesaid two batch of writ petitions, which is not correctly decided. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered.
9. Re - Point No.2. Insofar as the question whether other officers, who are similarly placed as that of Prasanna Kumar are entitled to the benefit of the order of the Division Bench and as affirmed in the judgment of the Supreme Court is concerned, now it has become purely academic. Though the question of law was left open to be decided, subsequent to the judgment of the Supreme Court when the Board has taken a decision to extend the benefit of fixation of pay scale in terms of the order passed in Prasanna Kumar's case to all employees/officers who are similarly placed, the said relief sought for by the petitioners in these cases has become infructuous. However, we make it clear all 55 officers, who are similarly placed as that of Prasanna Kumar are entitled to pay fixation, without any deduction from the date of their respective appointment. It is submitted a revised notional pay fixation has been granted and they shall be paid the revised pay scale from 1.12.2008. Therefore, point No.2 is answered accordingly.
10. Re - Point No.3 : In the light of what we have stated while dealing with point No.2 on the ground that 53 officers approached the Apex Court in the pending appeal preferred against Prasanna Kumar by the Board their applications came to be rejected on the ground that it is belated, and as the Board has extended the benefit of fixation of the pay scales in terms of the order in Prasanna Kumar's case, it cannot be said that rejection of their impleading application in any way has affected pay fixation insofar as they are concerned.
11. However, the question, which remains to be considered is that although these petitioners are granted individual pay fixation from the date of 56 appointment and are granted monetary benefits w.e.f. 1.12.2008, are they entitled to monetary benefits from the date of entry into service till 1.12.2008. In support of their contention that all the benefits, which is granted to Prasanna Kumar should be extended to those employees, who have filed the writ petitions or not, even when the petitions are filed belatedly, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court. A Division Bench of this court in NAGAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in ILR 1986 KAR 3093 at paragraph 2 has held as under :-
"2. We have perused the said decisions and also the averments made in the writ petition. In our opinion, it is not necessary for every person to approach this court for a relief similar to the one already by this Court in the aforesaid decisions. If a decision has been rendered by this Court, it would be proper for the authorities to follow and extend the benefit of that decision in like cases coming before them. That should be the guiding principle to be borne in mind in the administration. It is not proper to drive 57 every person to seek relief in this Court. It is indeed the duty of the authorities to extend the benefits of the concluded decision of this Court to all other similar cases."
12. The Apex Court in the case of M.R. GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (1995) 5 SUPREME COURT CASES 628 at paragraphs 4 and 5 is held as under :-
"4. The Tribunal has upheld the respondents' objection based on the ground of limitation. It has been held that the appellant had been expressly told by the order dated 12.8.1985 and by another letter dated 7.3.1987 that his pay had been correctly fixed so that he should have assailed that order at that time "which was one time action". The Tribunal held that the raising of this matter after lapse of 11 years since the initial pay fixation in 1978 was hopelessly barred by time. Accordingly, the application was dismissed as time barred without going into the merits of the appellant's claim for proper pay fixation.58
5. Having heard both sides, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has missed the real point and overlooked the crux of the matter. The appellant's grievance that his pay fixation was not in accordance with the rules was the assertion of a continuing wrong against him which gave rise to a recurring cause of action each time he was paid a salary which was not computed in accordance with the rules. So long as the appellant is in service, a fresh cause of action arises every month when he is paid his monthly salary on the basis of a wrong computation made contrary to rules. It is no doubt true that if the appellant's claim is found correct on merits, he would be entitled to be paid according to the properly fixed pay scale in the future and the question of words, the appellant's claim, if any, for recovery of arrears calculated on the basis of difference in the pay which has become time barred would not be recoverable, but he would be entitled to proper fixation of his pay in accordance with rules and to cessation of a continuing wrong if on merits his claim is justified. Similarly, any other consequential relief claimed by him, such as, promotion etc., would also be subject to the defence of laches etc. to 59 disentitle him to those reliefs. The pay fixation can be made only on the basis of the situation existing on 1-8-1978 without taking into account any other consequential relief, which may be barred by his laches and the bar of limitation. It is to this limited extent of proper pay fixation the application cannot be treated as time barred since it is based on a recurring cause of action."
13. In the decision of RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS VS. SULTAN MOHAMMED reported in 2000 LAB IC 1550 at paragraphs 18 and 23 after following the aforesaid judgment in M.R. Gupta v. Union of India and others, reported in (1995) 5 SCC 628, the apex court held as follows :-
"18. Thus the non-fixation of pay in a pay scale in accordance with the rule being a continuing cause of action, a claim in that regard cannot be rejected on the ground of laches alone. However, the consequential relief in terms of seniority and promotion shall be subject to defence of laches. In the instant case, no consequential relief in terms 60 of seniority and promotion has been claimed. If such a claim is made, the same shall be considered in accordance with the rules without prejudice to the rights of the other parties.
23. Thus, when a decision is given in some cases and the said decision has attained finality, in all fairness the authorities instead of driving each person affected to the Court of law, on representation being made should scrutinize such cases within the shortest possible time and if the claim is found to be covered by the decision of the court, such persons should be given the benefit of the decision. If it is found that the case of the person is not covered by the decision of the Court, the representation should be decided by a speaking order and same should be communicated to the person affected forthwith."
14. From the aforesaid judgments two aspects become clear. Firstly, when a decision is given in some case which has attained finality, authorities instead of driving each person affected to approach the court of law, such person should be given the benefit of the 61 decision. It is not necessary for every person to approach the court for the similar relief to the one already granted by the court. In fact, it is the duty of the public authorities to extend the benefits of the concluded decisions to all other similar cases. The second principle which is also well settled is, in case of recurring cause of action, the question of limitation to enforce a right would not arise. Especially in case of non-fixation of pay-scale in accordance with the Rules, the injury caused is a recurring one. Therefore, if a person is entitled to a particular pay-scale and if it is denied to him, he can approach the court during his service as it is a recurring cause of action. However, it is now equally well settled this recurring cause of action should not be confused to the consequential relief to be granted after granting the main relief. Insofar as this consequential or ancillary reliefs are concerned, the bar of limitation, defence of laches are attracted and once they are established, though a person is entitled to the same relief, he may not be entitled to the consequential reliefs and these consequential reliefs could be denied 62 as time barred as it is not based on recurring cause of action. It is in the background of this settled legal position, we have to see the facts of the case and its application.
The pay fixation is claimed on the basis of the order passed by the Board which is dated 12.3.1977 is with effect from 1.4.1976. When the benefit under this order was denied to both workmen and officers, writ petitions came to be filed complaining of discrimination. W.P.NO.13133/1983 and some of the writ petitions were filed in 1986 and the writ petition filed by Prasanna Kumar is of the year 1987. The writ petition filed by the workmen came to be allowed on 4.12.1990. The writ appeal preferred against the said order came to be allowed on 3.8.1995. After remission to the learned Single Judge, the writ petition filed by Prasanna Kumar came to be disposed of on 14.10.1998. The writ appeal filed against the said order came to be dismissed on 5.12.2007 i.e. nearly 30 years after the Government order. Admittedly, none of these petitioners challenged the Board order till the judgment of the Apex Court on 63 5.12.2007. These writ petitions are filed in the year 2008 and some of them have filed writ petition in 2011. 53 officers filed an impleading application before the Apex Court for their impleadment and for extending the benefit of the order in Prasanna Kumar's case to them also. Though in the aforesaid judgment the Apex Court held when a decision is given in similar case and the said decision has attained finality, in all fairness the authorities instead of driving each person effected to the court of law on representation being made should consider each such case within the shortest possible time and the claim is found to be covered by the decision of the Court, such person should be given the benefit of the decision. Even though those 53 persons had approached the court by filing application, it dismissed the application on the ground of bar of limitation and refused to extend the benefit of the order to be passed by them in the said case. Therefore, it only shows the law as aforesaid is not an invariable rule. It depends on the facts of each case. Nevertheless, merely because their applications were dismissed, it does not 64 mean they are not entitled to the relief. Therefore, rightly they and others who are similarly placed have filed these writ petitions. When this court granted the relief to Prasanna Kumar who is similarly placed, which order has been confirmed by the Supreme Court, however, keeping open the question of law so far as this Court is concerned, the said issue has attained finality. The respondent Board is bound by the said decision. In the light of the aforesaid law laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court, even though the petitioners have not approached this Court, they are entitled to the benefit of fixation of pay-scale though belatedly after filing of some writ petitions, the respondent-Board realised its responsibility and in all fairness, they fixed the pay-scale of all these petitioners who are before the Court and who are also not before the Court. In addition they also extended the same benefit to the workman who have lost the battle. After pay fixation they gave the pay to them from the date of initial appointment. Therefore, they gave effect to the law declared by this court. They treated all persons who are 65 similarly placed alike and thus they obeyed the mandate of Article 16 of the constitution. However, in the matter of granting arrears they made a distinction. There was a specific order in Prasanna Kumar's case who was fighting the litigation from 1997 nearly for 20 long years and when he was succeeded he was not only entitled to the benefit of pay-scale, but also to all ancillary benefits flowing from the date of the writ petiton was granted. But granting of these ancillary benefits to Prasanna Kumar ipso facto will not confer any right on persons approaching this Court 30 years after the order as held by the Supreme Court. Bar of limitation, defence of laches all come into play insofar as extending these consequential and ancilliary benefits. It is in that context the respondent took a policy decision to pay monitory benefit from 1.12.2008 i.e. within a reasonable time after the judgment of the Apex Court. In the facts of this case in the light of the law as laid down by the Apex Court, we are satisfied that action of the respondent in not extending the benefit of arrears to these persons who have approached the court 30 years 66 after the order is, reasonable and it does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution as these persons constitute a class different from Prasanna Kumar who fought the litigation for 20 long years and has been given the benefit of the arrears. Both of them cannot be put on par. Therefore, in the light of the discussion made above, the denial of arrears to all the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment till 1.12.2008 cannot be found fault with. Accordingly, these writ petitions are rejected.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE NG*/rs