Karnataka High Court
The Nuclear Power Corporation Of India ... vs Gururaj Kulkarni on 21 August, 2024
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
-1-
WA No.100128 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.100128 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. THE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED,
BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR (CMD),
NABHIKIYA URJA BHAVAN ANUSHAKTI NAGAR,
MUMBAI-400094.
2. THE KAIGA GENERATING STATION,
NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED,
KAIGA SITE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SITE DIRECTOR,
KAIGA SITE, KARWAR TALUK,
Digitally UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA-581400.
signed by
JAGADISH T APPELLANTS NO. 1 & 2 R/BY ITS MANAGER (H.R)
R
Location: ... APPELLANTS
High Court
of
Karnataka,
Dharwad
Bench.
(BY SRI. J.S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. GURURAJ KULKARNI,
AGE: 39 YEARS, DESIGNATION: TECHNICIAN/F,
R/O: C-273 KAIGA TOWNSHIP,
UTTARKANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 581400.
2. SREEJITH P.S.,
AGE: 37 YEARS, DESIGNATION: TECHNICIAN/F,
R/O: C-3/1/3 KAIGA TOWNSHIP,
UTTARKANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 581400.
-2-
WA No.100128 of 2024
3. CHETAN TELKAR,
AGE: 37 YEARS, DESIGNATION: TECHNICIAN/F,
R/O: C-6/6/1 KAIGA TOWNSHIP,
UTTARKANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 581400.
4. MANGALDAS A BANDEKAR,
AGE: 40 YEARS, DESIGNATION: TECHNICIAN/F,
R/O: B-149 KAIGA TOWNSHIP,
UTTARKANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 581400.
5. GOKUL R. DHEPI,
AGE: 42 YEARS, DESIGNATION: TECHNICIAN/F,
R/O: C-6/8/2 KAIGA TOWNSHIP,
UTTARKANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 581400.
6. SANDEEP V.,
AGE: 40 YEARS, DESIGNATION: TECHNICIAN/F,
R/O: B/L/3/W KAIGA TOWNSHIP,
UTTARKANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 581400.
7. VIKASH KUMAR,
AGE: 36 YEARS, DESIGNATION: TECHNICIAN/F,
R/O: B-193 KAIGA TOWNSHIP,
UTTARKANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 581400.
8. PANKAJ V. SALUNKE,
AGE: 43 YEARS, DESIGNATION: TECHNICIAN/F,
R/O: C/K/4/N KAIGA TOWNSHIP,
UTTARKANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 581400.
9. NIRANJANAMURTHY B.L.,
AGE: 39 YEARS, DESIGNATION: TECHNICIAN/F
R/O: C-5/1/4 KAIGA TOWNSHIP
UTTARKANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 581400.
10. G.SHIVAKUMARA,
AGE: 40 YEARS, DESIGNATION: TECHNICIAN/F,
R/O: B/P/7/W KAIGA TOWNSHIP,
UTTARKANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 581400.
11. T.S. MAHANTESHA,
AGE: 42 YEARS, DESIGNATION: TECHNICIAN/F
R/O: B/P/8/S KAIGA TOWNSHIP
UTTARKANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 581400.
12. RAMESH N PATGAR,
AGE: 37 YEARS, DESIGNATION: TECHNICIAN/F
-3-
WA No.100128 of 2024
R/O: B/L/9/N KAIGA TOWNSHIP
UTTARKANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 581400.
13. KUMAR S. NAIK,
AGE: 40 YEARS, DESIGNATION: TECHNICIAN/F
R/O: B/L/8/S KAIGA TOWNSHIP
UTTARKANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 581400.
14. NAGARAJ S. NAIK,
AGE: 36 YEARS, DESIGNATION: TECHNICIAN/F
R/O: B/P/5/S KAIGA TOWNSHIP
UTTARKANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 581400.
15. SANJAY KUMAR DEHARIYA,
AGE: 38 YEARS, DESIGNATION: TECHNICIAN/F
R/O: B/P/5/W KAIGA TOWNSHIP
UTTARKANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 581400.
16. RAVI MARATHI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, DESIGNATION: TECHNICIAN/F,
R/O: B-163 KAIGA TOWNSHIP,
UTTARKANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 581400.
17. RANGANATHA G.P
AGE: 36 YEARS, DESIGNATION: TECHNICIAN/F,
R/O: B/P/7/N KAIGA TOWNSHIP,
UTTARKANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 581400.
18. MANJUNATH V. NAIK,
AGE: 37 YEARS, DESIGNATION: TECHNICIAN/F,
R/O: B/L/9/E KAIGA TOWNSHIP,
UTTARKANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 581400.
19. NITAL S. HUTAGI,
AGE: 42 YEARS, DESIGNATION: TECHNICIAN/F,
R/O: C-4/6/4 KAIGA TOWNSHIP,
UTTARKANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 581400.
20. SACHIN SHARAD ROKADE,
AGE: 46 YEARS, DESIGNATION: TECHNICIAN/F,
R/O: C-8/10/4 KAIGA TOWNSHIP,
UTTARKANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 581400.
21. SURAJ DEVKAR,
AGE: 39 YEARS, DESIGNATION: TECHNICIAN/F,
R/O: C-7/7/4 KAIGA TOWNSHIP,
UTTARKANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 581400.
-4-
WA No.100128 of 2024
22. GOURISH S. NAIK,
AGE: 41 YEARS, DESIGNATION: TECHNICIAN/F,
R/O: B/N/5/N KAIGA TOWNSHIP,
UTTARKANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 581400.
23. P.H. SOMASHEKHAR,
AGE: 39 YEARS, DESIGNATION: TECHNICIAN/F,
R/O: C/J/8/S KAIGA TOWNSHIP,
UTTARKANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 581400.
24. GURURAJ I. MUNNOLLI,
AGE: 39 YEARS, DESIGNATION: TECHNICIAN/F
R/O: C-5/10/3 KAIGA TOWNSHIP
UTTARKANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 581400.
25. RAJU S. PAGI,
AGE: 58 YEARS, DESIGNATION: TECHNICIAN/F
R/O: HOUSE NO.193 HINDUWADA, MALLAPUR,
UTTARKANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 581400.
26. SUKUMAR SAMANTHA,
AGE: 40 YEARS, DESIGNATION: TECHNICIAN/F,
R/O: C-379 KAIGA TOWNSHIP,
UTTARKANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 581400.
27. SHANTA G. GOUDA,
AGE: 39 YEARS, DESIGNATION: TECHNICIAN/F,
R/O: C-8/4/4 KAIGA TOWNSHIP,
UTTARKANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 581400.
28. SURESH A. PATIL,
AGE: 43 YEARS, DESIGNATION: TECHNICIAN/F,
R/O: C-004 KAIGA TOWNSHIP,
UTTARKANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 581400.
29. GURUDATT R. PANDIT,
AGE: 41 YEARS, DESIGNATION: TECHNICIAN/F
R/O: C-2/3/3 KAIGA TOWNSHIP
UTTARKANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 581400.
30. ANSHUL JAIN,
AGE: 39 YEARS, DESIGNATION: TECHNICIAN/F,
R/O: C-276 KAIGA TOWNSHIP,
UTTARKANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 581400.
31. NANJUNDASWAMNY S.M.,
AGE: 41 YEARS, DESIGNATION: TECHNICIAN/F,
-5-
WA No.100128 of 2024
R/O: C-196 KAIGA TOWNSHIP,
UTTARKANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 581400.
32. THE UNION OF INDIA,
THE MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
SHRAM SHAKTI BHAVAN, RAFI MARG,
NEW DELHI-110001.
33. THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
R/BY ITS SECRETARY (EXP.) AND FINANCE,
DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE,
ROOM NO.74C, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.
34. THE MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL,
PUBLIC GRIEVANCE AND PENSION,
THE DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL TRAINING,
R/BY THE NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.
35. THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION AND SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY,
R/BY ITS CHAIRMAN, ANUSHAKTI BHAVAN,
CHATRAPATI SHIVAJI MARG, MUMBAI-400001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALLIGOUD, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R31
SRI. VENKATESH M. KHARVI, DGSC FOR R32 TO R35)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, THE ORDER DATED 23.02.2024
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.103001/2022
MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST
THROUGHT IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON
20.08.2024 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY,
KRISHNA S.DIXIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
-6-
WA No.100128 of 2024
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT) This Intra Court Appeal calls in question a learned Single Judge's order dated 23.02.2024 whereby W.P. No.103001/2022 (S-RES) filed by the respondent - employees having been favoured, following directions having been issued to the appellants.
"22. A direction is issued to the respondents to continue the petitioners in the existing pay structures that they were drawing from 01.01.2016 (the date on which the revised pay rules came into force) till the day of the promotion of the petitioners to the next cadre, after the 25th July, 2016.
23. The respondents shall, however, be entitled to apply the revised pay structure from the date on which the petitioners were promoted, subsequent to 25.07.2026. They would also be entitled to recover any sums paid from the future salaries of the petitioners in case they were paid excess sums under the revised pay structure."
2. FACTS IN BRIEF:
(i) First appellant is a Public Sector undertaking of the Central Government and apparently it answers definition of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India as widely construed by the Apex Court in R.D. Shetty Vs. -7- WA No.100128 of 2024 International Airport Authority1 and therefore its actions are liable to judicial scrutiny under Articles 226 & 227.
Second appellant is a unit of the first appellant - Corporation. The private respondents herein happen to be employees of the appellants.
(ii) The Central Government promulgated the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 vide Notification dated 25.07.2016. These Rules have been promulgated in exercise of power availing under Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. The Rules have been brought into force with retrospective effect from 01.01.2016. Rule 5 entitles the employees to draw pay in the revised pay structure applicable to the post to which they are appointed. The employees had submitted their option for revision of their pay structure from various dates as specified by them.
(iii) The appellants having had a view of Rule 5 in variance with that of the employees, the subject petition came to be moved. Learned Single Judge after considering the Statement of Objections filed by the appellants herein and 1 AIR 1979 SC 1628 -8- WA No.100128 of 2024 no such statement having been filed by the Central Government, allowed the petition and granted relief to the employees. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants are in appeal.
3. Learned panel counsel appearing for the appellants seeks to falter the impugned order mainly contending that the interpretation placed by the learned Single Judge on Rule 5 is flawsome; impugned order would open up flood gates of claims by other employees and it has got huge financial implications. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the employees resists appeal making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been constructed. He draws attention of the Court certain clarificatory Circulars issued by the Central Government favourable to the claim of the employees.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter for the following reasons: -9- WA No.100128 of 2024
(a) The first thing we have to bear in mind is that ours is a constitutionally ordained Welfare State and it has to conduct itself as a 'Model Employer' vide Apex Court decision in Bhupendra Nath Hazarika Vs. State of Assam2. Secondly, the 1996 Rules are promulgated for the benefit of employees and therefore, should any doubt arises in construing the same, ordinarily the same needs to be resolved in favour of the employees subject to all just exceptions. That being said, one cannot be oblivious to the financial repercussions while placing interpretation on Rules of the kind inasmuch as they govern rights of thousands of employees. At the same time, the fear that many will stake their claim under the Rules is unjustified, if the intent of the Rules Maker is to benefit a class of employees, which may prove to be larger.
(b) Learned panel counsel Shri J.S. Shetty appearing for the appellants drew our attention to the essential factors namely: the subject rules are notified on 25.07.2016; they are deemed to have come into force with retrospective 2 (2013) 2 SCC 516
- 10 -WA No.100128 of 2024
effect from 01.01.2016; these Rules apply to persons appointed to Central Government Services and Posts whose pay is debitable to the Civil Estimates and also the employees of Audit & Accounts Department. There is no dispute that the subject Rules apply to the employees of the appellant organisation. Rules 5 which is jugular vein of the case has the following text:
5. Drawal of pay in the revised pay structure.- Save as otherwise provided in these rules, a Government servant shall draw pay in the Level in the revised pay structure applicable to the post to which he is appointed:
Provided that a Government servant may elect to continue to draw pay in the existing pay structure until the date on which he earns his next or any subsequent increment in the existing pay structure or until he vacates his post or ceases to draw pay in the existing pay structure:
Provided further that in cases where a Government servant has been placed in a higher grade pay or scale between 1st day of January, 2016 and the date of notification of these rules on account of promotion or upgradation, the Government servant may elect to switch over to the revised pay structure from the date of such promotion or upgradation, as the case may be."
Three Explanations to the said Rule not being much relevant to the adjudication of this case are not reproduced.
- 11 -WA No.100128 of 2024
(c) The substantive part of Rule 5 provides that the employee shall draw pay in the revised pay structure admissible to the post in question. The first proviso and the second proviso are in the nature of exception to the general rule enacted in the said Rule. They provide for retention of the existing pay structure that is Pay Band and Grade Pay, in three eventuality namely (i) till the date on which the employee earns imminent increment; (ii) till he vacates the post substantively held by him & (iii) until he ceases to draw pay in the existing pay structure. Keeping this in mind, learned Single Judge has rightly observed at paragraph No.15 of the impugned order as under:
"15. On a plain reading of this proviso, the Government servant is entitled to opt for drawing pay in the existing pay structure till he vacated his post or till he ceased to draw pay in the existing pay structure. It cannot be in dispute that a Government Servant, on being promoted, would vacate his existing post and would also cease to draw pay in his existing pay structure. Merely because the term "the date of promotion" is not mentioned in the first proviso, it would not mean that the Government servant is not entitled to elect to continue to draw pay in the existing pay structure till his next promotion."
- 12 -
WA No.100128 of 2024
(d) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- employee is more than justified in drawing our attention to their full particulars such as name, date of promotion and the date with effect from which the revised pay is claimed. All those particulars have been furnished in a tabular form at Annexures-6 & 6A. Learned panel counsel appearing for the appellants placed reliance on Office Memorandum dated 15.04.2021 which at paragraph No.2 reads as under:
"2. The issue has been examined in this Department and the Competent Authority in partial modification of the conditions enumerated in para '7' of the said O.M. has approved for allowing another opportunity to Government employees to exercise/re-exercise option for pay fixation as allowed under O.M. dated 28.11.2019 within three months from the date of issue of this Office Memorandum. No further request for extension of date or relaxation of condition in exercising of option will be entertained under any circumstances."
A perusal of the above paragraph shows that it runs a bit in variance with the intent & content of the two Provisos to Rule 5. In any circumstance, we cannot construe the said paragraph as advancing the case of appellants.
- 13 -
WA No.100128 of 2024
(e) Learned panel counsel vehemently contended that the interpretation of Rule 5 which the employees desire at the hands of this Court if accepted would open up a plethora of claims by other employees of the Central Government and its undertakings. Such a plea is loosely taken in the Statement of Objections filed to the Writ Petition and now in the Appeal Memo. Such a contention could have been taken by the Central Government which also is a party to these proceedings; however, it was not taken. Strangely the Central Government has chosen not to file Statement of Objections. That apart the particulars of financial repercussion have not been materially pleaded. Therefore, we are in a disadvantageous position to treat the said contention. Added, only a set of few employees are making the claim and we do not intend to cover others in this judgment. Even learned Single Judge too has the same inarticulate premise. Therefore, the appellants need not have apprehension of the kind.
- 14 -
WA No.100128 of 2024In the above circumstances, this appeal fails. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge shall be given effect to within a period of eight weeks.
Sd/-
(KRISHNA S.DIXIT) JUDGE Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE VNP / CT: VP