Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller vs Tanaji S/O Siddaji Mane (T S Mane) on 29 July, 2024
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10667-DB
WA No. 100193 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100193 OF 2024 (S-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
DHARWAD RURAL DIVISION, DHARWAD-580001,
REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION, GOKUL ROAD,
HUBBALLI, DHARWAD-580030,
REPD. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
... APPELLANTS
Digitally signed
by JAGADISH T
(BY SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSMANI, ADVOCATE)
R
Location: High
Court of AND:
Karnataka
Dharwad Bench
1. TANAJI S/O. SIDDAJI MANE, (T. S. MANE),
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
OCC. RETIRED EMPLOYEE OF NWKRTC,
R/O. NARAYANAPURA ONI, KAMLAPUR ROAD,
SHANTI COLONY, PLOT NO.17,
DIST. DHARWAD-580008.
2. SHANTAPPA N. SURYAVAMSHI,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
OCC. RETIRED EMPLOYEE OF NWKRTC,
R/O. HEBBALLI P. O, HEBBALLI,
TQ AND DIST.DHARWAD-580001.
3. IQUBAL AMMERSAB KHAJI,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10667-DB
WA No. 100193 of 2024
AGED 63 YEARS,
OCC. RETIRED EMPLOYEE OF NWKRTC,
R/O. ARAVIND BELLAD MARG,
URDU SCHOOL ROAD, TEJASWI NAGAR,
DIST. DHARWAD-580002.
4. KRISHNA H. MORE (K. H. MORE),
AGE 63 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED EMPLOYEE
OF NWKRTC,
R/O. MALAPUR LAST BUS STOP,
RAJAJINAGAR, 2ND CROSS,
DIST. DHARWAD-580008.
5. VASANTH S/O. VENKATARAO SHINDE,
(V. V. SHINDE),
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
OCC. RETIRED EMPLOYEE OF NWKRTC,
R/O. MARATA COLONY, 8TH CROSS,
DIST. DHARWAD-580008.
6. VEERANNA S/O. KALAPPA HOOLI,
(V. K. HOOLI),
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
OCC. RETIRED EMPLOYEE OF NWKRTC,
R/O. JANATHA PLOT, HEBBALLI,
TQ AND DIST. DHARWAD-580001.
... RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
22.02.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P NO.
100157/2024 AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION IN ITS ENTIRETY IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10667-DB
WA No. 100193 of 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) This intra-Court appeal is filed by the Corporation assailing the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.02.2024 passed in WP No.100157/2024, wherein the appellant was directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the respondents' retirement till the date it was paid on the gratuity and the leave encashment amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Being aggrieved, the Corporation is in appeal.
2. Sri. Prashant S Hosamani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Corporation submits that in the absence of any provision to claim interest for the delay in payment of leave encashment benefit and gratuity, the learned Single Judge has committed an error, in awarding interest at the rate of 9% per annum. It is submitted that the appellant/Corporation could not recover from the financial crisis that occurred during Covid-19 pandemic period. It is further submitted that the State Government has issued an order whereby the rate of interest is prescribed at 5.55% per annum -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10667-DB WA No. 100193 of 2024 for the delayed payments. Hence, he seeks to interfere with the impugned order of learned Single Judge by allowing the appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/Corporation and meticulously perused the material available on record.
4. The undisputed facts are that the respondents have worked as employees of the Corporation and their terminal benefits like gratuity & leave encashment were paid belatedly. The learned Single Judge taking note of the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WA No.100420/2023, has ordered for payment of interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the gratuity & leave encashment from the date of their retirement till payment. Insofar as entitlement of interest for the delayed payment of terminal benefits of the employee, law is fairly settled. This Court in the case of Dr. Chandrashekar B. Kambara vs. Bangalore University & Others1 has held that the action of the University in settling the retirement benefits of the petitioner therein in the pay-scale of reader was illegal and arbitrary and therefore, the University was directed to pay interest for the delayed settlements of retirement 1 ILR 2003 KAR 2125 -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10667-DB WA No. 100193 of 2024 benefits at 12% per annum. Considering the analogy of the aforesaid decision, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge is justified in directing the award of interest for the delayed settlement of terminal benefits. The contention of the panel counsel that Corporation could not make payment due to financial crisis cannot be a ground to deny the legitimate entitlement of the employees.
5. Another contention of the Corporation is that the Government has issued some order whereby rate of interest is prescribed at 5.54% for the delayed payments. However, the learned counsel for the appellant is unable to place on record the said order nor is able to answer as to under which statute, such order is passed by the State. In the absence of any cogent and acceptable material, such contention, cannot be considered. It is a trite law that the retirement benefits are not a bounty and they are a matter of right of employee that cannot be withheld at the sweet will or whim of the employer vide D. S. Nakara Vs. Union of India2. In the instant case, admittedly, there is delay in settling the retirement benefits like gratuity & leave encashment without any justification. Hence, 2 (1983) 1 SCC 305 -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10667-DB WA No. 100193 of 2024 we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge is absolutely justified in directing appellant/Corporation to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of their retirement till actual payment.
6. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any error or perversity in the impugned order calling for interference in the appeal. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed as being devoid of merits.
The Registry to send a copy of this judgment to all the private respondents by speed-post immediately.
Pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
(KRISHNA S.DIXIT) JUDGE Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE JTR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20