Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka Power Transmission ... vs Sri D Basavaraju on 21 April, 2020
Bench: Chief Justice, Pradeep Singh Yerur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT APPEAL NO. 3089/2019 (S-RES)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NOS. 3085/2019, 3086/2019, 3087/2019
AND 3088/2019 (S-RES)
IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 3089/2019
BETWEEN:
THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING CORPORATE OFFICE AT
CAUVERY BHAVAN
BENGALURU-560009
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR (ADMN AND HR)
... APPELLANT
(BY SHRI S.S. NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI S. SRIRANGA, ADVOCATE FOR
M/S. JUST LAW, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SRI. D BASAVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
S/O DOLLAIAH
NO.178, RAJABHAVANA
2ND MAIN, 6TH CROSS
-2-
NEAR AMMA ASHRAMA
JANABHARATHI, IIND STAGE
BANGALORE-560056
2. SRI M N PHANEESH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
S/O M.A. NARSIMHAMURTHY
"SHRIMAATA", VIVEKANANDA ROAD
2ND CROSS, VIDYANAGAR,
HASSAN-573202.
3. SRI B N MOHANKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
S/O LATE N.NARAIMHA RAO
NO.183, 3RD CROSS
7TH MAIN, MARUTHI LAYOUT
VASANTHAPURA
SUBRAMANYANAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560061
4. SRI. GOPAL
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH
SHARADAMMA COMPOUND
HOTEL APOORVA ROAD
NORHERN EXTENSION
HASSAN-573201
5. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI
BANGALORE-560001
REP. BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI I. THARANATH POOJARY, AGA FOR R5,
SHRI G.S. NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI S.B. MUKKANNAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R3,
SHRI SHANKAR S. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R4)
---
-3-
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER DATED 17.07.2019,
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NOS.
24932-24935/2018 (S-RES) AND DISMISS THE WRIT
PETITIONS AND ETC.
IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 3085/2019
BETWEEN:
THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING CORPORATE OFFICE AT
CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560 009
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR (ADMN. AND HR)
... APPELLANT
(BY SHRI S.S. NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI S. SRIRANGA, ADVOCATE FOR
M/S. JUST LAW, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. MR. VENKATRAMAN G PANDIT
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT NO.101A, 13TH CROSS, AECS
1ST STAGE, SANJAY NAGAR
BENGLAURU NORTH
BENGALURU-560 094
RETD. AS FINANCIAL ADVISOR
-4-
2. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
M.S.BUILDING
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDI
BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SHANKAR S. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1
SHRI I. THARANATH POOJARY, AGA FOR R2)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER DATED 17/07/2019
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP
NO.29116/2017 (S-RES) AND OTHER CONNECTED
MATTERS AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITIONS AND ETC.
IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 3086/2019
BETWEEN:
THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING CORPORATE OFFICE AT
CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560009
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR (ADMN AND HR)
... APPELLANT
(BY SHRI S.S. NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI S. SRIRANGA, ADVOCATE FOR
M/S. JUST LAW, ADVOCATES)
-5-
AND:
1. R.N. SHIVAPRAKASH
S/O. GUPTA R K N,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING AS EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER (ELEC.),
@ H.T. CELL, BESCOM, BENGALURU
R/AT PRANATHI SHREYAS
NO. 96, EAST PART ROAD
9TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU-560003
2. RAMESH KUMAR D
S/O. DASAPPA K V
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING AS
SUPERINTEND ENGINEER (ELEC.),
BESCOM, BENGALURU
NO. 117, 17TH MAIN, BTM 2ND STAGE
BENGALURLU-560076
3. V GOVINDA RAJU
S/O. VENKATARANARAJU
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING AS SUPERINTEND
ENGINEER (ELEC.), KPTCL,
KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU
R/AT NO. 648, 6TH MAIN
ISRO LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560078
4. H.R. SHREE NAGESH
S/O. H. DEVEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING AS DMG/EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER
BESCOM, BENGALURU
R/AT NO. 52, HARI HARA
17TH CROSS CHORD ROAD
VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-560040
-6-
5. B. GOVINDA RAO
S/O. B. KRISHNA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING AS
SUPERINTEND ENGINEER (ELEC), KPTCL,
ANAND RAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU
R/AT NO. 163, 6TH MAIN
JAYANAGAR, 4TH BLOCK
BENGALURU-560011
6. S N GOPALA KRISHNA GUPTA
S/O. S.M. NARASIMHA SETTY
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING AS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC),
ANANDA RAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU
R/AT NO. 46, 3RD MAIN, 11TH CROSS
PRASHANTH NAGAR
BENGALURU-560079
7. CHANDRA SHEKAR K C
S/O. CHIKKARAMAPPA K
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING AS GM (INTERNAL AUDIT)
BESCOM, KR CIRCLE, BENGALURU
R/AT NO. 248, 10TH MAIN
1ST BLOCK, HRBR LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560043
8. B N SATISH CHANDRA
S/O. S B NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING AS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC.)
KPTCL MALURU, KOLAR DISTRICT
R/AT NO. 488, 33RD-A-CROSS
9TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH-B-BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BAENGALURU-560011
9. SUBRAMANYA U R
S/O. S. RAMANNA,
SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY
LEAGAL REPRESENTATIVE
-7-
9(a). LAKSHMI,
D/O. LATE SUBRAMANYA UR
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT FLAT NO. 222, 22ND BLOCK
J.P. NAGAR, 1ST PHASE
BENGALURU-560078
10. A.N. SRINIVAS MURTHY
S/O. NARASIMHA SETTY A R
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KPTCL, DODDABALLAPURA
R/AT NO. 1418, 9TH CROSS
39TH MAIN, JP NAGAR
1ST PHASE, BENGALURU-560078
11. B V NAGESH
S/O. B N VENKATARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING AS
SUPERINTENDANT ENGINEER (ELEC.)
HASSAN, R/AT NO. 3,
SRI RASHMI, 10TH CROSS
SWIMMING POOL EXTENSION, MALLESWARAM
BENGALURU-560003
12. KRISHNA MURTHY S
S/O. SREEKANTAIAH. K
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER (ELEC.),
BESCOM, BENGALURU
R/AT NO. 123/2
SRI. KANTESHWARA NILAYA
HK HALLY, 7TH MAIN, TT NAGAR,
HOSAKERE HALLY
BSK-3RD STAGE
BENGALURU-560085
13. C.R. VIJAYA DEV
S/O. RAJA RAM C.R.
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING AS GENERAL MANAGER
-8-
POWER PURCHASE
BESCOM, BENGALURU
R/AT NO. 9, 1ST CROSS, SRINIVASA COLONY
BENGALURU-560057
14. S. VENUGOPAL
S/O. SREENIVAS IYENGRA K R,
SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY LEGAL
PRESENTATIVE
14(a). SMT. GEETHA V
W/O. LATE. S. VENUGOPAL
AGED 26 YEARS
R/AT NO. 60/61, VENUPRIYA
1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN
NEAR ELITE PROMINADE
JP NAGAR, 7TH PHASE, LAKSHMI NAGAR
BENGALURU SOUTH
BENGALURU-560078
14(b). SMT. SMITHA KARTHIKEYAN
W/O. KARTHIKEYAN
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT NO. 184,9TH CROSS
CIL LAYOUT
CHOLANAYAKANA HALLI
BENGALURU-560032
14(c). SWATHI V
W/O. PANINDRAN
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT NO. 60/61, VENUPRIYA
1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN
NEAR ELITE PROMINDADE
JP NAGAR, 7TH PHASE, LAKSHMI NAGAR
BENGALURU SOUTH
BENGALURU-560078
15. FIYAZ AHAMED
S/O. ABDUL AHMED
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING AS
-9-
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC),
KPTCL, KAVERI BHAVAN, BAENGALURU,
R/AT NO. 1195, 1ST MAIN,
DR. AMBEADKAR LAYOUT
KAVAL BYRASANDRA
R.T. NAGAR, BENGALURU 560032
16. JOHNSON KISHORE T
S/O. A. THOMAS
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING AS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC),
HSR LAYOUT, KPTCL, BENGALURU
R/AT NO. 534/13, 14TH MAIN ROAD
GOKULA 1ST STAGE
1ST PHASE, MATTIKERE
BENGALURU-560054
17. JINENDRAPPA
S/O. DEVARAJAPPA C G
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING AS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (CIVIL),
BESCOM, BENGALURU
R/AT NO. 11132, SHANTALA
5TH STAGE, 2ND PHASE, 3RD CROSS
BEML LAYOUT, RR NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560098
18. S. MONOHAR
S/O. SUBRAYA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING AS
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
MAHALAKSHMI NAGAR
BENGALURU, R/AT NO. 79
2C CROSS, A & B LAYOUT
MAHALAKSHMIPUR, BENGALURLU-560086
19. A VENKANNA BHAT
S/O. HANUMANTH BHAT
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING AS
- 10 -
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (CIVIL) BELAGALUM
R/AT NO. 353, NEAR KARIBASAVESHWARA TEMPLE
BHARATH NAGAR
NEW AMARAVATHI
HOSPET
BELLARY DISTRICT-583201
20. S.M. JAYAPRAKASH
S/O. LATE. T.S. MARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING AS
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
CORPORATE OFFICE
BESCOM, BENGALURU
R/AT NO. 2/3, SUNANDA SNEHA ENCLAV
OPP. BHARAT GAS GODOWN
JAYANTHI NAGARA, HORAMAVU
BENGALURU-560043
21. G. NAGARAJ
S/O. GUNDA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING AS
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
KPTCL, CORPORATE OFFICE
KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU
R/AT NO. 16, VIBHA, SIMHADRI LAYOUT
UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU-560061
22. H. NAGARAJ
S/O. H P ACHAR
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING AS
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
O & M CIRCLE, SHIMOGA, MESCOM
R/AT NO. 1320, 14TH MAIN
7TH CROSS, BTM 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-560076
23. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
M.S BUILDING,
- 11 -
DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PROF. RAVI VARMA KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR SHRI MAHESH R UPPIN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6,
R8, R9 (a), R10, R11 TO R13, R14 (a-c), R19, R20 to 22
SHRI D. VENKATARAMANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R7)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER DATED 17/07/2019
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP
NO.55694/2016 AND WP NOS.56151-71/2016 (S-RES) AND
DISMISS THE WRIT PETITIONS AND ETC.
IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 3087/2019
BETWEEN:
THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING CORPORATE OFFICE AT:
CAUVERY BHAVAN
BENGALURU-560009
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR (ADMN AND HR)
... APPELLANT
(BY SHRI S.S. NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI S. SRIRANGA, ADVOCATE FOR
M/S. JUST LAW, ADVOCATES)
- 12 -
AND:
1. MR. M.N. NARASIMHA RANGA
S/O NARAYANA IYENGAR
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT NO.159, F-2, 8TH MAIN
BEML LAYOUT
BASAVESHWARA NAGAR
BENGALURU 560079.
FORMERLY WORKING AS
SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
2. MR. C.S. RAMACHANDRA
S/O SHANKAR RAO
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING AS
CHIEF ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
R/AT NO.1, GROUND FLOOR,
VIJAY NEST APARTMENT,
14TH A CROSS, MALLESWARAM,
BENGALURU 560003.
3. NARASIMHA MURTHY O.R
S/O RANGADHAMAIAHA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING AS
SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
R/AT NO.725, 16TH MAIN
SAHAKARANAGAR A BLOCK
BENGALURU-560092
4. T. ASWATHA REDDY
S/O LATE T. MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING AS
SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
R/AT NO.44,
BRINDAVANA, 2ND CROSS
SRIRAMPURA, BENGLAURU-560021
5. UMESH PRASAD H.S
S/O H.D SRIKANTIAHA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
- 13 -
FORMERLY WORKING AS
SUPERINTEND ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
R/AT NO.F-282, VINAYAKA, 10TH MAIN
3RD CROSS,
SAHAKARANAGARA
BENGALURU-560092
6. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
M.S.BUILDING
DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDI
BENGALURU-560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PROF. RAVI VARMA KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR SHRI MAHESH R UPPIN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5
BY SHRI I. THARANATH POOJARY, AGA FOR R6)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER DATED 17/07/2019
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP
NOS.9453-57/2017 (S-RES) AND OTHER CONNECTED
MATTER AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITIONS AND ETC.
IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 3088/2019
BETWEEN:
THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING CORPORATE OFFICE AT:
CAUVERY BHAVAN
BENGALURU-560009.
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR (ADMN AND HR)
... APPELLANT
- 14 -
(BY SHRI S.S. NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI S. SRIRANGA, ADVOCATE FOR
M/S. JUST LAW, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. RAGHAVENDRA R JOSHI
S/O RAMARAO R JOSHI
R/AT: NO.27, "VAISHNAVI",
ADYAPHAKARA NAGAR,
NEXT SIDDESHWARA PARK,
VIDYA NAGAR, HUBBALLI-580031.
2. SREENIVASAN.C
S/O LATE KANNAN NAIR. An
R/AT "SHREYES" NO.48,
RBI HOUSING COLONY,
3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR EAST,
BENGALURU-560011.
3. V.G. MANJUNATH
S/O LATE GAVIYAPPA V.S
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT: NO.239, 10TH B CROSS,
25TH MAIN, 1ST PHASE
J.P. NAGAR
BENGALURU-560078.
4. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
M.S. BUILDING, DR B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDI
BENGALURU-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF/
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PROF. RAVI VARMA KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR SHRI MAHESH R UPPIN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3 & R1,
SHRI SREENIVASAN C., PARTY IN PERSON - C/R2 &
BY SHRI I. THARANATH POOJARY, AGA FOR R4)
---
- 15 -
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER DATED 17/07/2019
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP
NOS.51276-78/2017 (S-RES) AND OTHER CONNECTED
MATTERS AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITIONS.
THESE APPEALS, HAVING HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, AND THE CHIEF JUSTICE
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These appeals take exception to the Judgment and order dated 17th July 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 55694/2016 and other connected petitions. These appeals have been preferred by the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (for short 'KPTCL'). The petitioners who filed writ petitions are the respondents to these appeals and KPTCL - the appellant was the 2nd respondent in the writ petitions filed before the learned Single Judge. For the sake of convenience, we are referring to the parties as 'KPTCL' and 'the petitioners'. The petitioners are the retired employees of KPTCL and all of them have retired as senior officers of KPTCL.
2. Earlier, the petitioners were officers of the Karnataka Electricity Board (for short 'KEB'). The Karnataka Electricity
- 16 -
Reforms Act, 1999 (for short 'the Reforms Act') came into force on 21st August 1999. From that day, the employees of KEB became the employees of KPTCL with continuity of all the existing service conditions.
3. The grievance made in the writ petitions was regarding quantum of pension payable to the petitioners who had retired prior to 1st April 2012 and after the said date.
4. The challenge in the writ petitions was to the order dated 10th July 2012 passed by KPTCL by which a cap was imposed on the pension amounts which provided that maximum pension amount will be Rs.39,900/- and maximum family pension amount will be Rs.23,940/-. The said order was applicable to the employees who retired or who died while in service prior to 1st April 2010, to the employees who retired or died between 1st April 2010 and 31st March 2012 and to the employees who retired/died while in service after 1st April 2012. The second order under challenge in the writ petitions is dated 9th March 2018, by which pension/family pension of the employees who have retired or died on or after 1st April 2017 as well as the pension/family pension of the pensioners/family pensioners existing as on 31st March 2017 was revised. By the said order,
- 17 -
consequent to revision of pay scales of the employees of KPTCL with effect from 1st April 2017, in case of the employees retiring from 1st April 2017, the upper ceiling on the pension was fixed at Rs.61,120/- and maximum amount of family pension payable in case of employees who died on or after 1st April 2017, or who retired on or after 1st April 2017 and died thereafter was fixed at Rs.36,672/-. The minimum pension amount and family pension amount were also enhanced to Rs.8,185/- and Rs 36,672/- respectively.
5. There was a prayer in the writ petitions to re-fix the pension of petitioners equivalent to 50% of the last drawn emoluments by removing the ceiling on pension. There is a similar prayer in some of the petitions in respect of family pension.
6. Next prayer in the petition was for directing the KPTCL to fix the pension of the petitioners by adding 26% as per order dated 9th March 2018 with a maximum pension of Rs.61,120/- with effect from 1st April 2017 and maximum family pension of Rs.36,672/- on par with employees retired on 1st April 2017.
7. A prayer was made for grant of interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of retirement of the
- 18 -
petitioners till the payment of amounts as per the prayers made in the petition.
8. In some of the petitions, the challenge was also to the orders of KPTCL dated 31st August 2007 and 14th September 2016 as well.
9. The writ petitions were contested by KPTCL by filing statement of objections.
10. By the impugned Judgment and order, the writ petitions were allowed by passing the following order:
"i) The writ petitions are allowed.
ii) The impugned Board orders dated
31.08.2007, 10.07.2012, 14.09.2016 and
09.03.2018, to the extent of fixing maximum cap on pension and family pension payable at less than 50% of the last drawn emoluments of the employees of KPTCL, stand quashed and set aside.
iii) The respondent-KPTCL is directed to re-fix the pension and family pension payable to the retired employees of KPTCL at the rate of 50% of the last drawn emoluments, including mergeable Dearness Allowance.
iv) The petitioners are entitled for payment of arrears on the difference of pension already
- 19 -
paid and what was required to be paid at the rate of 50% of the last drawn emoluments including mergeable Dearness Allowance, along with interest. However, the interest at the rate of 6% p.a. shall be calculated from 01.01.2017 and paid within a period of six months from today, failing which, on expiry of six months, the same shall carry interest at 12% p.a."
11. The learned counsel appearing for KPTCL has made detailed submissions. The learned counsel relied upon the following decisions:
State of Maharashtra v. Digambar1, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai2, G. Shiva Prasad and others v. State of Karnataka and another3, State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh and Ashok Kumar4, State of West Bengal v. Subhas Kumar Chaterjee5, State of Punjab and others v. Amar Nath Goyal and others6, State of Punjab and others v. Boota Singh and another7, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. R. Veerasamy and others8, 1 (1995) 4 SCC 683 2 AIR 1964 SC 1006 3 WP11240-405/2017, decided on 23.01.2019 by Karnataka High Court 4 AIR 1992 SC 111 5 (2010) 11 SCC 694 6 AIR 2006 SC 171 7 (2000) 3 SCC 733 8 AIR 1999 SC 1768
- 20 -
Union of India v. P.N. Menon and others9, Indian Ex-Services League and others v. Union of India10, Dharam Dutt and others v. Union of India and others11, and Padma Sundara Rao (dead) and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others12.
12. The first submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the KPTCL is based on inordinate delay. He pointed out that some of the writ petitioners have retired prior to 1st April 2012 and some of them have retired after 1st April 2012. He pointed out that the petitions were belatedly filed in the year 2016, 2017 and 2018 for challenging the order dated 10th July, 2012 passed by the KPTCL which is made applicable to those employees who retired after 1st April 2012. In this behalf, he relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra -vs- Digambar (supra) and State of Madhya Pradesh -vs- Bhailal Bhai (supra). He also relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of G. Shivaprasad and others -vs- State of Karnataka passed in Writ Petition Nos. 112400-45/2017 decided on 23rd January, 2019.
9 AIR 1994 SC 2221 10 AIR 1991 SC 1182 11 (2004) 1 SCC 712 12 (2002) 3 SCC 533
- 21 -
13. His submission is that the Regulation-219 of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations (for short 'the Service Regulations') which governs the pensionary benefits was amended with effect from 10th July, 2012 and in none of the writ petitions, the amended Service Regulations were challenged. He submitted that the impugned order runs contrary to Regulation-219 of the Service Regulations and therefore, such a writ of mandamus could not have been issued by the learned Single Judge, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal -vs- Subhas Kumar Chaterjee (supra). He submitted that the Regulation 219 places a cap on fixation of pension to an extent of Rs.39,900/-. He submitted that assuming that Regulation-219 is void, unless it is challenged by the petitioners, the same will continue to operate and bind the petitioners. He submitted that the pension to employees of the KEB was determined by the State Government by passing orders from time to time. However, the revision of pay and allowances to the government servants and to KPTCL was not done simultaneously from the year 1999. He submitted that though the State Government was fixing the pay-scales as per the reports of the Pay Commission, the KPTCL followed the
- 22 -
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1948 (for short 'the said Act of 1947') and determined the benefits to the employees by taking recourse to collective bargaining. He urged that the Government orders determining the maximum pension have been adopted by the KPTCL. He urged that in the orders passed by the KPTCL for fixation of pension which were passed on 31st August 2007, 10th July 2012, 14th September, 2016 and 9th March 2017 (for short 'the impugned orders'), cut off dates have been fixed/prescribed with reference to the dates of retirement of the employees. He submitted that the benefits conferred based on the cutoff dates cannot be interfered with by the writ Court. He submitted that unless the cutoff dates are shown to be arbitrary and whimsical, the same cannot be interfered with. He relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in this behalf in the case of State of Punjab and others -vs- Amar Nath Goyal (supra), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board -vs- R. Veerasamy and others (supra), Union of India -vs- P.N. Menon and others (supra) and Indian Ex-Services League and others -vs- Union of India (supra). He submitted that the financial considerations and economic policy play a significant role while fixing the rates of pension. He relied upon the decision of the
- 23 -
Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others -vs- Boota Singh (supra).
14. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the pay scales and emoluments payable to the employees of the State Government and the employees of the KPTCL are not exactly the same and in fact, the total emoluments paid to the employees of the KPTCL are higher than that of the employees of the State Government. He submitted that fixing the maximum pension depending on the date of retirement is a fair act and variation in maximum pension for those who retired in subsequent year does not bring about any discrimination. He submitted that challenge to the impugned order dated 9th March, 2018 is completely misconceived. He submitted that the said order is applicable only to those employees, who retired or expired while in service on or after 1st April, 2017. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dharam Dutt and others -vs- Union of India and others (supra), he submitted that laying down of intelligible differentia does not mean that it should be scientifically perfect or logically complete and it would suffice if the differentia has a rational relation within the object sought to be achieved. He submitted that the objects have been mentioned in the order dated 9th
- 24 -
March, 2018. He pointed out that one of the objects mentioned in the said order is that in view of the different dates for giving effect to revision of pay-scales for the employees of the KPTCL and the revision of the pay-scales and pensionary benefits to employees of the State Government, several anomalies had occurred in pensionary benefits, the management had decided to revise the pensionary benefits. He submitted that an order which is made applicable to the employees retiring on or after 1st April 2017 cannot be made applicable to the employees who retired much prior to 1st April, 2017.
15. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for some of the writ petitioners relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of O.P. Gupta v Union of India and others13. Writ Petitioners also relied upon another decision of Apex Court in the case of Smt. Poonamal and others v. Union of India and others14. He also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court dated 11th July 2019 in the case of All Manipur Pensioners Association by its Secretary v. the State of Manipur and others15. He pointed out the discrimination complained of. He 13 (1987) 4 SCC 328 14 (1985) 3 SCC 345 15 Civil Appeal No.10857/2016, decided on 11.07.2019
- 25 -
urged by showing the document containing the pension amounts and salaries payable to Government employees, that the employees of KPTCL are being discriminated against. He pointed out the discrimination and two classes of pensioners arbitrarily created by the impugned orders which has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. He pointed out that the case is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of All Manipur Pensioners Association (supra). Apart from the learned Senior Counsel and other learned counsel representing some of the writ petitioners-respondents, one of the writ petitioners has argued the case in person. He has pointed out several factual details. It was submitted that the settlement relied upon by the KPTCL between itself and its employees will not apply to the respondents-writ petitioners who were holding the posts of officers. It is submitted that the settlement entered into under the said Act of 1947 will not be binding on the writ petitioners, inasmuch as, they were not the members of the Union and they were not signatories to the said settlement and therefore, they are not the parties to the settlement. It was submitted that the order dated 9th March, 2018 itself accepts that there were several anomalies in the structure of fixation of pension. It was submitted by the writ
- 26 -
petitioners that all of them had retired after 1st April, 2010. The decisions relied upon by the appellant-KPTCL have no application to the facts of this case. It was submitted that the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Manipur Pensioners Association (supra) clearly settles the issue in favour of the pensioners and therefore, no interference is called for.
16. We have given careful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties. By the impugned order dated 17th July, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge, it has been directed that KPTCL shall re-fix the Pension and Family Pension payable to its retired employees at the rate of 50% of the last drawn emoluments, including mergeable dearness allowance. Regulation 221 (a) as amended provides for rate of 30% of emoluments for family pension. Moreover, even in the order dated 9th March, 2018 which was impugned in the writ petition, the Family Pension admissible was of 30% of the emoluments subject to minimum of Rs.8,185/- per month and maximum of Rs.36,672/- per month (being 30% of the maximum pay in the highest time scale of pay in KPTCL as per revision with effect from 1st April 2017). Neither the Service Regulations nor any of the orders of the KPTCL provide for paying family pension at the rate of 30%
- 27 -
of the pay. However, the learned Single Judge has directed that even the family pension payable to the family of the deceased or retired employees will be at the rate of 50% of the last drawn emoluments. Even assuming that the writ petitioners are right, the same should have been 30% of the emoluments. To that extent, there is an error in clauses (ii) and (iii) of the operative part of the impugned Judgment and order dated 17th July, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge.
17. Before we make a detailed analysis by referring to the Service Regulations and the impugned orders, we must refer to the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. The learned Judge relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Dr. K. Gopala and others -vs- State of Karnataka and others16 and the decision of the Apex Court in the case of All Manipur Pensioners Association (supra) and held that the said decisions will squarely apply to the facts of the case. The most relevant findings have been recorded by the learned Single Judge in paragraph-23 of the impugned Judgment. Paragraph-23 reads thus:
16
(2019 (3) KLJ 783)
- 28 -
"23. Very recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of All Manipur Pensioners Association Vs. The State of Manipur and others, in Civil Appeal No.10857 of 2016, decided on 11.07.2019, has held that there is no valid justification to create two classes viz., one who retired pre-1996 and another who retired post- 1996, for the purpose of grant of revised pension. It was held that such a classification has no nexus if the object and purpose of grant of benefit of revised pension. All the pensioners from one class who are entitled to pension as per the pension rules. Article 14 of the Constitution of India ensures to all equality before law and equal protection of laws. A valid classification is truly a valid discrimination. It is true that Article 16 of the Constitution permits a valid classification. However, classification must be based on a just objective. The result to be achieved by the just objective presupposes the choice of some for differential consideration/treatment over others. A classification to be valid must necessarily satisfy two tests. Firstly, the distinguishing rationale has to be based on a just objective and secondly, the choice of differentiating one set of persons from another, must have a reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved. The test for a valid classification may be summarized as a distinction based on a classification founded on an
- 29 -
intelligible differentia, which has a rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved. It was therefore, held that whenever a cut-off date is fixed to categorize one set of pensioners for favourable consideration over others, the twin test for valid classification or valid discrimination thereof must necessarily be satisfied. Since persons who retired prior to 1996 were not given the benefit as was given to person who retired subsequent to 1996, the Apex Court held that the classification in question has no reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved while revising the pension. The decision in All Manipur Pensioners Association (supra) applies on all fours to the present case. Therefore, there is no hesitation to hold that the artificial cut-off dates provided in the impugned Board orders do not stand the test of law".
(Emphasis added)
18. Now we will have to examine whether the four impugned orders are arbitrary and discriminatory in nature.The effect of the impugned Judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is that the impugned orders dated 31st August 2007, 10th July 2012, 14th September, 2016 and 9th March, 2018 to the extent of fixation of maximum cap on pension and family pension payable at less than 50% of the last drawn
- 30 -
emoluments of the employees of KPTCL stands quashed and set aside as mentioned in clause (ii) of the operative part of the impugned order. The clause (iii) of the impugned order directs re-fixation of the pension and family pension to the retired employees of KPTCL at 50% of the last drawn emoluments, including mergeable dearness allowance. On the conjoint reading of clause (ii) and (iii) of the operative part of the impugned order, the direction is to fix the pension and family pension at the rate of 50% of the last drawn emoluments without any ceiling.
19. The writ petitioners were all employees of the Karnataka Electricity Board (for short 'KEB'). As per Section-14 of the Reforms Act, KPTCL was incorporated. By virtue of Section 15 of the Reforms Act, the employees of the KEB (described therein as "the personnel from the Board") became the employees of KPTCL with continuity of service conditions. There is no dispute that the employees of the KPTCL are governed by the Service Regulations (which came into force with effect from 1st January, 1966) as amended from time to time. It will be necessary to make a reference to clause (a) of Regulation 219 of the Service Regulations, as it originally stood. The said un-amended Regulation 219 read thus:
- 31 -
"219. The amount of Compensation/ Invalid/Superannuation Pension (including retiring pension) or Gratuity and death-cum-retirement gratuity admissible will be as noted below: -
Amount of pension
(a) The maximum qualifying service for earning pension shall be 66 completed six monthly periods, viz -
(i) Compensation Pension
(ii) Invalid Pension
(iii) Superannuation Pension
(iv) Retiring Pension
(v) Compassionate Allowance
It shall be calculated at 50% of the
emoluments drawn at the time of retirement/death subject to a minimum of Rs.390/- and maximum of Rs.3450/- per month. The amount of pension so arrived at will be related to the maximum qualifying service of 66 completed six monthly periods. For an employee who at the time of his retirement, renders a qualifying service of 20 completed six monthly periods or more but less than 66 completed six monthly periods; the amount of pension shall be such proportion of the maximum admissible pension, as the qualifying service rendered bears to the maximum qualifying service of 66 completed six monthly
- 32 -
periods. In calculating the length of qualifying service for this purpose, a fraction of a year equal to three months and above shall be treated as a completed six monthly period and reckoned as qualifying service".
(Emphasis added) Regulation 221 (a), as it was originally incorporated, deals with family pension which read thus:
"221 (a) The amount of Family Pension admissible has been substituted with reference to the orders issued by the Board from time to time. The pay range and monthly family pension is tabulated as under:
Table I (effective from 1.4.1982) Pay Range Monthly Family Pension
1) Below Rs.600/- 30% of pay
2) Rs.600/- to 1599/- 15% of pay subject to a minimum of Rs.180/- per month
3) Rs.1600/- and above 12% of pay subject to a minimum of Rs.240/- per month Table II (effective from 19.7.1985) Pay Range Monthly Family Pension
1) Upto Rs.850/- 30% of pay
2) Rs.851/- to 2100/- 15% of pay subject to a minimum of Rs.255/- per month
- 33 -
3) Rs.2101/- and above 12% of pay subject to a minimum of Rs.315/- per month Table III (effective from 1.7.1986) Pay Range Monthly Family Pension
1) Not exceeding 30% of the emoluments Rs.1500/- per month subject to a minimum Of Rs.390/- per month
2) Exceeding Rs.1500/- 20% of the emoluments but not exceeding subject to a minimum Rs.3000/- per month of Rs.450/- per month
3) Exceeding Rs.3000/- 15% of the emoluments per month subject to a minimum of Rs.600/- per month and maximum of Rs.1250/-
per month."
Thus, the pension as provided in the un-amended Regulation 219(a) is to be calculated at 50% of the emoluments drawn at the time of retirement, subject to minimum of Rs.390/- and maximum of Rs.3450/- per month. Perusal of the subsequent amendments made to clause (a) of Regulation 219 will show that the rule of calculating 50% of the emoluments drawn at the time of retirement remains the same and the only modifications made from time to time are in respect of the amount of minimum and maximum pension payable.
- 34 -
20. Regulation 221 (a) shows that in the un-amended Service Regulations, different rates on the basis of the percentage of the last drawn pay have been prescribed. The maximum rate of family pension was prescribed at 30% of the pay and the minimum was 12% of the pay.
21. It is true that there are two orders dated 6th February, 1999 and 9th February, 2011 passed by the KPTCL which provide that the pensionary benefits of its employees shall be regulated as prevailing in the State Government from time to time. However, the entitlement of the employees of KPTCL to pension and family pension is governed by the Service Regulations. There is no challenge to the applicability of the Service Regulations to the petitioners.
22. Now, we come to the first impugned order dated 31st August, 2007. By the said order, the pension in respect of the employees retired on or after first April, 2003 was revised by adding 71% of the dearness allowance as on 1st July, 2005, sanctioned as per the order dated 1st December 2015, to the basic pension sanctioned on the revised basic pay as on the date of retirement consequent to revision of pay scales as on 1st April, 2003. Similarly, the family pension was revised in
- 35 -
respect of the employees, who ceased to be in service on account of death or in case of death of the pensioners on or after 1st April, 2003. The family pension in such cases was revised by adding 71% dearness allowance as on 1st July 2005 to the family pension, as sanctioned on the revised basic pay on the date of death of the employee. This order appears to be issued as there was a revision of pay scales of employees from 1st April 2003 and that there was an enhancement of dearness allowance from 1st July 2005.
23. As far as the pension is concerned, there are two clauses in the first impugned order dated 31st August 2007 which are very relevant. Clauses (3) and (4) of the said order dated 31st August, 2007 which are relevant read thus:
"3. Minimum Pension:
3.1 The minimum amount of the following kinds of pension admissible under Chapter IX of KEBESRs viz., pension is enhanced to Rs.2,250 (Rupees Two Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Only) per month.
i. Superannuation Pension
ii. Retiring Pension
iii. Invalid Pension
iv. Compensation Pension
v. Compassionate Allowance.
- 36 -
4. Maximum Pension:
4.1. The ceiling on the maximum amount of various kinds of pension mentioned in para 3 above is fixed at Rs.19,950/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty) per month.
4.2 Regulation 219 (a) of KEBESRs shall stand modified to the above extent."
(Emphasis added) Thus, as far as the retirement pension is concerned, by the order dated 31st August, 2007, Regulation 219 (a) of the Service Regulations was amended for enhancing the minimum pension to Rs.2,250/- per month from Rs.390/- per month and by enhancing the maximum pension to Rs.19,950/- per month from Rs.3,450/- per month. As far as Family Pension is concerned, Regulation 221 (a) underwent modification by virtue of clause-8 of the said order dated 31st August, 2007. Clause 8 reads thus:
"8. Family Pension:
8.1 The rates of family pension admissible under Regulation 221 (a) of the KEBESRs shall be 30% of the emoluments subject to minimum of Rs.2,250/- (Rupees Two Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty) and maximum of
- 37 -
Rs.11,970/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy) per month."
(Emphasis added)
24. Thus, by the said amendment brought to the Regulation 221 (a), irrespective of the pay of the deceased employee, the rate of Family Pension was fixed at 30% of the last drawn emoluments subject to minimum of Rs.2,250/- and maximum of Rs.11,970/- per month. As can be seen from the un- amended Regulation 221 (a), the rate of 30% was fixed in case of minimum pay and the percentage was reduced to 12% for higher pay-scales. Thus, by virtue of the order dated 31st August, 2007, Regulation 221 (a) stood amended by providing that the family pension shall be calculated at the rate of 30% of the emoluments subject to minimum and maximum, as fixed there under. The upper ceiling on both the categories of pension was enhanced obviously in view of the upward revision of the pay scales with effect from 1st April 2003.
25. As far as the next impugned order dated 10th July, 2012 is concerned, the same brought about revision of pension and family pension in case of following three categories of employees:
- 38 -
(a) Employees retired prior to 1st April 2010 or employees who died while in service prior to 1st April 2010 and the employees who died after retirement prior to 1st April, 2010;
(b) Employees retired between 1st April 2010 and 31st March 2012, the employees who died while in service between 1st April 2010 and 31st March 2012 and the employees who died after retiring between 1st April 2010 and 31st March 2012; and
(b) Employees who retired on or after 1st April, 2012.
Accordingly, a formula for calculating the revised pension was laid down. In case of first two categories of the employees, the minimum pension was fixed at Rs.4,800/- per month and maximum was fixed at Rs.39,900/-. The minimum family pension was fixed at Rs.4800/- per month and the maximum at Rs.23,940/-. The orders mentioned at reference nos.3 to 5 in the said order are the orders of revision of pay scales of the employees of KPTCL. The order referred in reference no. 5 is of the revision of pay scales of the officers of KPTCL with effect from 1st April 2010.
26. The clauses (2) and (6) under heading III of the said order read thus:
- 39 -
"2. Maximum Pension:
i. The ceiling on the maximum amount of various kinds of pension in para 1 above is fixed at Rs.39,900/- (THIRTY NINE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED) per month w.e.f. 1st April 2012.
ii. Regulation 219 (a) of KEBESRs shall stand modified to the above extent."
"6. Family Pension
(i) The rates of family pension admissible under Regulation 221 (a) of KEBESRs shall be 30% of the emoluments subject to minimum of Rs.4,800/- (Rupees Four Thousand Eight Hundred) and maximum of Rs.23,940/-
(Rupees Twenty Three Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty) per month.
(ii) In the case of an employee who dies while in service after having rendered a qualifying service of not less than seven years, the family pension admissible under the KEBESRs shall be at an enhanced rate equal to 50% of emoluments last drawn or twice the family pension normally admissible, whichever is less, for a period of seven years or till the date on which employee would have attained the age of 65 years if he had survived, whichever is earlier.
(iii) In the event of the death on or after first day of April, 2012 of both father and mother who were
- 40 -
employees, the family pension payable to minor children under the KEBESRs shall be subject to a maximum of Rs.23,940/- (Rupees Twenty Three Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty) per month.
(iv) Regulation 221 (a a) of the KEBESRs shall stand modified to the above extent."
(Emphasis added)
27. Even in case of the employees retiring on or after 1st April, 2012, the ceiling of maximum amount of pension was fixed at Rs.39,900/- per month. Sub-clause (2) of Clause-III of the said order dated 10th July, 2012 records that Regulation 219 (a) has been modified accordingly and therefore, while maintaining the formula of 50% of the last drawn emoluments, by the impugned order dated 10th July, 2012, the pension amount payable in case of all three categories of the employees mentioned in the said order was revised by increasing maximum pension to Rs.39,900/- per month. However, the formula of 50% was not disturbed. By the same impugned order, as regards the family pension, the formula of 30% for calculating the family pension was maintained. However, minimum family pension was enhanced to Rs.4,800/- per month and maximum was enhanced to Rs.23,940/- per
- 41 -
month. As stated earlier, the upper ceiling on both the categories of pension was enhanced in view of the upward revision of pay scales of the employees of KPTCL.
28. The next impugned order dated 14th September 2016 does not amend any Regulation or the earlier formula, but the only change effected is in case of employees who retired or expired while in service between 1st April, 2010 to 31st March, 2012. The relevant part of the order dated 14th September, 2016 reads thus:
"KPTCL is pleased to accord approval to increase/enhance the pension to Rs.39,900/- (maximum pension) for those employees/officers who retired/expired while in service between 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2012 and drawing basic pay in excess of Rs.39,610/- (Applicable Pensioners) at the time of their retirement considering their qualifying service".
29. Now we come to the last impugned order dated 9th March, 2018. The relevant part of the order reads thus:
"The Corporation is pleased to accord approval for the Pensionary benefits of the Employees' retiring/expired on or after 01.04.2017 and Pension/Family Pension of the Pensioners/Family Pensioners existing as on
- 42 -
31.03.2017 consequent to revision of Pay Scales to the Employees' of the KPTCL w.e.f 01.04.2017 in the following manner.
A. Revision of Pensionary Benefits:
For the Employees' retiring/expired on or after 01.04.2017:
1. Minimum Pension:
The Minimum amount of the following kinds of Pension admissible under the KEBESRs shall be enhanced to Rs.8,185/- per month (i.e. 50% of the Minimum Pay in the lowest time scale of pay in KPTCL) w.e.f. 1st of April 2017.
(i) Superannuation Pension;
(ii) Retiring Pension;
(iii) Invalid Pension;
(iv) Compensation Pension;
2. Maximum Pension:
The ceiling on the maximum amount of various kinds of pension mentioned in para 1 above shall be fixed at Rs.61,120/- per month (i.e. 50% of the Maximum Pay in the highest time scale of pay in KPTCL) w.e.f. 1st April, 2017.
3. Family Pension:
a. The rates of Family Pension admissible as per KEBESRs shall be 30% of the emoluments subject to Minimum of Rs.8,185/- per month (i.e. 50% of the Minimum Pay in the lowest time scale
- 43 -
of pay of KPTCL) and Maximum of Rs.36,672/- per month (30% of the Maximum pay in the highest time scale of pay in KPTCL) in respect of Employees' who put in a continuous service of not less than one year, and died/dies while in service or retires on or after 1st April 2017."
(Emphasis added)
30. The relevant Service Regulations were not amended by the said order and the basic rates of 50% and 30% were maintained in respect of Pension and Family Pension respectively. However, consequent upon the revision of the pay-scales of the employees of the KPTCL with effect from 1st April, 2017, the amount of maximum pension was increased to Rs.61,120/- per month by observing that it is 50% of the maximum pay in the highest time scale of pay in KPTCL with effect from 1st April, 2017. The minimum pension was enhanced to Rs.8,185/- per month by observing that it is equivalent to 50% of the minimum pay in the lowest time scale of pay in KPTCL with effect from 1st April, 2017. Similarly, while maintaining the rate of 30%, the maximum family pension was fixed at Rs.36,672/- per month which is equivalent to 30% of the maximum pay in the highest time scale pay in KPTCL with effect from 1st April, 2017. Clause B of the said order
- 44 -
dated 9th March, 2018 grants substantial relief to the pensioners and family pensioners existing as on 31st March 2020. Clause B reads thus:
B. Revision of Pension and Family Pension:
For the Pensioners and Family Pensioners of KPTCL prior to 01.04.2017.
1. Revision of Pension and Family Pension:
The Pension and Family Pension of the Pensioners/Family Pensioners existing as on 31.03.2017 (retired/death after retirement/died while in service prior to 01.04.2017) shall be revised in the following manner:
(i) Basic Pension/Family Pension as on 01.04.2017.
(ii) ADD 26% of Basic Pension/Family Pension as on 01.04.2017 The total amount computed as per (i) and (ii) above shall be fixed as Revised Basic Pension/Family Pension. If, the total amount computed as per (i) and (ii) above contain fraction of rupees, it shall be rounded off to next highest rupees as per KEBESR Regulation 217 note (3). The total amount computed as per (i) and
(ii) above shall be subject to a Minimum of Rs.6,048/- per month for Pension/Family Pension and Maximum of Rs.50,274/- per
- 45 -
month and Rs.30,165/- per month in respect of pension and family pension respectively."
(Emphasis added) Thus, over and above the pension and family pension payable as on 1st April 2017, 26% of the basic pension as on 1st April 2017 will be added. Most importantly, the upper limit of pension and family pension has been enhanced to Rs.50,274/- and Rs. 30,165/- respectively for giving effect to the addition of 26% percent. Thus, for calculating enhanced pension/family pension, the respective upper limits of Rs.39,900/- and Rs.23,940/- fixed under the order dated 10th July 2012 will not apply and the aforesaid enhanced upper limits will apply. This important aspect has been glossed over by the learned Single Judge.
31. Thus, the analysis of all the four impugned orders can be summarized as under:
(i) Regulation 219 (a) which provides for a formula to calculate the admissible pension at the rate of 50% of the last drawn emoluments remained the same and it was never modified;
- 46 -
(ii) None of the four impugned orders modify the percentage of last drawn emoluments payable as pension and the same remains at 50% as provided in Regulation 219(a).
(iii) By the order dated 31st August, 2007, an amendment was made to Regulation 221 (a) for fixation of family pension at 30% of the emoluments irrespective of the pay-scales. This amendment is beneficial to the family pensioners as in the original Regulation 221(a), 30% was the maximum rate and in case of higher pay scales, it was lower than 30% even up to 12%. This amendment made to Regulation 221 (a) fixing the percentage of family pension at 30 % was not modified by subsequent three impugned orders;
(iv) By order dated 31st August, 2007, Regulations 219
(a) and 221 (a) to the extent of the minimum and maximum amount of pension and Family Pension were amended. The minimum pension and family pension was fixed at Rs.2,250/- per month and the maximum pension was fixed at Rs.19,950/- per month. The maximum family pension was fixed at Rs.11,970/- per
- 47 -
month. Thus, by amending the Regulations 219 and 221, the minimum and maximum amount was enhanced. This enhancement of upper limit appears to have been made in view of the upward revision of pay scales;
(v) The impugned order dated 14th September, 2016 does not modify the Regulations 219 and 221 as regards pension and family pension. It does not bring about any change in the modification made by the order dated 10th July, 2012 as far as the minimum and the maximum pension is concerned. This order is passed only to remove the anomalies in relation to the employees, who retired between 1st April, 2010 and 31st March, 2012.
(vi) The order dated 9th March, 2018 again does not bring about any changes in the percentage of pension and family pension as provided in the Service Regulations but it only enhances the minimum and maximum amount consistent with the revised pay-scales of the employees of the KPTCL with effect from 1st April, 2017. The said enhancement is applicable to the employees retiring on and after 1st April 2017. The maximum amount of pension was enhanced to
- 48 -
Rs.61,120/- which is equivalent to 50% of the maximum pay in the highest time scale of pay with effect from 1st April, 2017 and maximum amount of family pension was enhanced to Rs.36,732/- which is equivalent to 30% of the maximum pay in the highest time scale of pay in KPTCL effect from 1st April, 2017.
(vii) Thus, as far as pension is concerned, the basic percentage of pension of 50% of the last drawn emoluments which was provided in Regulation 221 (a) of the Service Regulations has remained the same. The only changes effected by the impugned orders dated 31st August, 2007, 10th July, 2012 and 9th March, 2018 are by increasing the minimum and maximum ceiling on the pension amount. It has been done only with a view to give effect to the upward revision of pay scales of the employees of the KPTCL. This very clear even from the last impugned order dated 9th March, 2018 which enhances the ceiling of pension to an amount equivalent to 50% of the maximum pay in the highest time scale of pay in KPTCL with effect from 1st April, 2017. As far as family pension is concerned, under original Regulation 221 (a), the rates were fixed in the range of 12% to 30%
- 49 -
of the last drawn emoluments. However, by the first impugned order dated 31st August, 2007, the same was uniformly made at 30%;
(viii) As per the last impugned order dated 9th March 2017, in case of all the pensioners/family pensioners who were drawing the pension or family pension, as the case may be, on 1st April 2017 irrespective of the date of retirement or death, over and above the pension and family pension payable as on 1st April 2017, 26% of the basic pension as on 1st April 2017 will be added. Most importantly, the upper limit of pension and family pension has been enhanced to Rs.50,274/- and Rs. 30,165/- respectively for giving effect to addition of 26% percent.
32. The learned Single Judge has committed an error by enhancing the rate of family pension to 50%, inasmuch as, there is no basis for fixing the same at 50%. In the writ petition, there is no foundation for fixing the rates of family pension at 50%.
33. A perusal of the impugned judgment and order shows that the learned Single Judge has not noticed that by the
- 50 -
impugned orders, the rate of pension to be calculated at 50% of the last drawn emoluments has not undergone any change at all and the same has remained 50% irrespective of the date of retirement whether it is prior to 1st April, 2010 or thereafter. The only change brought about in the calculation of pension is of enhancement of upper ceiling and lower ceiling only to make it consistent with the upward pay revision of the employees of the KPTCL. If salaries of the employees increase, from the date of such increase, if the ceiling on maximum pension is enhanced by making it commensurate with 50% of the maximum pay in the highest time scale of pay as per the revised pay-scale, it cannot amount to discrimination. The learned Single Judge has heavily relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Manipur Pensioners Association (supra). Perusal of paragraph-2 of the said Judgment shows that by an Office Memorandum dated 21st April, 1999 issued by the Government of Manipur, it was provided that those employees who retire on or after 1st January, 1996 shall be entitled to the revised pension at a higher percentage and those who have retired before 1st January, 1996 were entitled to lower percentage. It is in this context, the Apex Court held that such a classification was
- 51 -
arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The said decision will have no application to the facts of the present case, as the percentage of pension has remained 50% under all the impugned orders, in terms of Regulation 219 (a). Moreover, the percentage of family pension as per Regulation 221 (a) was in the range of 12% to 30%. By the first impugned order dated 31st August, 2007, Regulation 221 (a) was amended and the rate of family pension was uniformly made 30% of the pay irrespective of the pay-scale. If this part of the order dated 31st August, 2007 is set aside, the same will cause prejudice to those family pensioners who were entitled to family pension inasmuch as, the original Regulation 221 (a) will be revived and the lower and upper ceiling of family pension will be considerably reduced in case of higher pay scales. This formula of 30% was not at all modified by any of the subsequent impugned orders. As the pensioners have not been divided into two classes on the basis of a cutoff date by providing for lesser percentage of salary as a pension before the cutoff date, the decision of the Apex Court will not apply. In this case, the percentage of pension and family pension has remained the same which has not been changed with
- 52 -
reference to any cutoff date. Only once, the percentage of family pension has been enhanced.
34. There is a difference in the concepts of retirement pension and family pension. The retirement pension is payable to a retired employee so long as he is alive and the family pension becomes payable to the members of the family of the deceased employee only after his demise. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in prescribing different rates for family pension and pension. The rate of family pension is less than the rate of retirement pension. There is no legal basis for saying that it should be the same.
35. There is nothing placed on record to show that the pay scales and allowances payable to the State Government employees and the KPTCL employees are the same. It is not shown that pay scales of similar class of employees working under the State Government and KPTCL always maintained parity. Hence, the argument based on the comparison of the upper limit of the pension fixed by the State Government and the upper limit fixed in case of KPTCL employees is of no relevance. The reason is that there cannot be a comparison of
- 53 -
two separate classes of employees whose pay scales are different.
36. As far as the fixation of upper ceiling on pension and family pension is concerned, no fault can be found inasmuch as, the impugned orders dated 31st August, 2007, 10th July 2012 and 9th March, 2018 will show that the ceiling was increased to make it consistent with the upward revision of pay- scales of the employees of the KPTCL. Obviously, those employees who retired prior to cut off dates mentioned in the said three impugned orders will not be entitled to benefit of higher ceiling limit, inasmuch as, that benefit will be available only to those pensioners whose salaries were enhanced due to upward pay revision of the employees of the KPTCL. The concept of having upper ceiling on pension amount is well established. Even the State Government employees have such upper ceiling. By the impugned Judgment, the learned Single Judge has removed upper ceiling altogether. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has committed an error.
37. As stated earlier, the effect of the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is that there will not be any upper ceiling on the amounts of pension and family
- 54 -
pension. Moreover, the family pension will be calculated at the rate of 50% of the last drawn emoluments. As stated earlier, all the employees irrespective of the fact whether they have retired from service prior to 1st April, 2010 or thereafter are made entitled to pension at 50% of the last drawn emoluments with upper ceiling as applicable from time to time. Similarly, in case of employees who have died prior to 1st April, 2010 or subsequent thereto, the family pension will be at the rate of 30% on the emoluments. When the enhancement in upper limit made by the impugned orders has a direct nexus with upward revision of the pay scales of the employees of KPTCL, by no stretch of imagination, it can be arbitrary or discriminatory.
38. In the facts and circumstances narrated above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained.
39. Accordingly, we pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Appeals are allowed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 17th July, 2019 passed in W.P Nos. 55694 and 56151-56171/2016 c/w 29116/2017, 9453-9457/2017, 51276-51278/2017 and 24932-24935/2018 stands set aside
- 55 -
and the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners stand dismissed.
(ii) There shall be no order as to the costs.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE VR