Karnataka High Court
M/S Karnataka Power Transmission ... vs Thagadaiah on 24 March, 2021
Author: Satish Chandra Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A.No.288/2020 (S-R)
C/W
W.A.No.289/2020 (S-RES)
IN W.A.No.288/2020:
BETWEEN:
1. M/s. Karnataka Power
Transmission Corporation Ltd.,
A Company incorporated under
the provisions of Companies Act, 1956.
Having its registered office at:
Cauvery Bhavan,
Bengaluru-560 009.
Represented by its
Managing Director.
2. The Director (Admn. & HR)
M/s. Karnataka Power
Transmission Corporation Ltd.,
Cauvery Bhavan,
Bengaluru-560 009. ... APPELLANTS
(By Sri Naganand, Sr. Counsel for
Sri S.G.Prashanth Murthy and
Sri S.Sriranga, Advs.)
2
AND:
1. Sri Thagadaiah,
S/o Late Thagade Gowda,
Aged about 63 years,
Retired Senior Mechanic
Office of The Assistant Executive
Engineer (Elec.),
Bangalore Electricity Supply
Company Limited, S-10 Sub Division,
J.P.Nagar, Bangalore-560 078.
Residing At No.58, Weavers Colony,
11th Cross, GottigereBanneraghatta Road,
Bangalore-560 076.
2. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Principal Secretary to
Government Department of Energy,
M.S.Buildings, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore-560 001. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri K.N.Subba Rao, Sr. Counsel for
Sri N.Devaraj, Adv. for R1;
Sri S.R.Kamalacharan, AGA for R2)
IN W.A.No.289 /2020:
BETWEEN:
1. M/s. Karnataka Power
Transmission Corporation Ltd.,
A Company incorporated under
the provisions of Companies Act, 1956.
Having its registered office at:
Cauvery Bhavan,
Bengaluru-560 009.
Represented by its
Managing Director.
3
2. The Director (Admn. & HR)
M/s. Karnataka Power
Transmission Corporation Ltd.,
Cauvery Bhavan,
Bengaluru-560 009. ... APPELLANTS
(By Sri Naganand, Sr. Counsel for
Sri S.G.Prashanth Murthy and
Sri S.Sriranga, Advs.)
AND:
1. Sri T.S.Ramaprasad,
S/o Late T.N.Suryanarayana Rao,
Aged about 63 years,
Retired As Senior Assistant
Corporate Office Legal Section Bescom,
K.R.Circle, Bangalore-560 009.
Residing At No. 156/6 "Z",
17th Cross, Bhagavathi Layout,
Hulimavu, Bangalore-560 076.
2. Sri Gudadaiah Sankri,
S/o Late Shivanna Sankri,
Aged about 63 years,
Retired as Assistant
Office of The Executive Engineer (Elec.),
Bescom Banashankari 2nd Stage,
Jayanagar Division,
Bangalore-560 070.
Residing At
Sri Geethanjali Apartment,
Flat No.502, Behind Coffee Day,
Uttarahalli Main Road,
Bangalore-560 061. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri K.N.Subba Rao, Sr. Counsel for
Sri N.Devaraj, Adv. for R1;
Sri S.R.Kamalacharan, AGA for R2)
4
Writ Appeal No.288/2020 is filed under section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the order
dated 19.02.2020 passed by the learned single Judge in
W.P.No.34371/2014 (S-RES) and dismiss the writ petitions.
Writ Appeal No.289/2020 is filed under section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the order
dated 19.02.2020 passed by the learned single Judge in
W.P.Nos.24946-48/2014 (S-RES) and dismiss the writ
petitions.
These appeals having been heard and reserved for
judgment on 16.03.2021, coming on for 'Pronouncement of
Judgment', this day, S.Vishwajith Shetty J., delivered the
following:
JUDGMENT
1. These two writ appeals arise out of the common order
dated 19.02.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this
Court in W.P.No.34371/2014 c/w W.P.No.27946/2014.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to
as they are referred in the writ petition.
3. Brief facts of the case are, the petitioners were working
as Assistant/Senior Assistant/Senior Mechanic in respondent
nos.2 & 3 - Corporation and they have attained the age of
superannuation and are receiving pension. Petitioners had
originally joined the services of Karnataka Electricity Board
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'). After coming into
force of the Karnataka Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 (for
short, 'the said Act of 1999'), the Board was re-organized into
Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL)
at the apex level as provided under Section 13 of the said Act
of 1999, with electricity supply companies established at
regional levels as provided under Section 14 of the said Act,
of 1999. KPTCL, though is an independent entity, followed the
State Government Rules and Regulations in the matters
concerning pensionary benefits of its employees and the
Government Rules are being adopted by the KPTCL from time
to time.
4. The Government of Karnataka, Karnataka Electricity
Board and Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Union on
31.07.1999 had entered into a Tripartite Agreement and it
was agreed under the said agreement that the Government
and the Board/Successor Corporation entities shall guarantee
payment of pension including dearness relief and other
terminal benefits that are in force pursuant to the bilateral
settlements and terms and conditions as on the dates of
these settlements both for pensioners and family pensioners.
The terms and conditions of the employees of the Board and
subsequently of the Corporation were being revised from time
to time by bilateral settlement entered into between the
management of the Board/Corporation and its recognized
workman trade unions. This system continued even after the
execution of Tripartite Agreement in the year 1999.
5. The respondent-Corporation by a Memorandum of
Settlement dated 09.09.2011 had revised the pay scales of
the employees who were in service after 01.04.2010 and as
per the said order, 25% of pay has been added to the
existing basic pay and in the said order, it is also agreed that
the pensionary benefits shall be regulated as prevailing in the
State Government. The State Government was pleased to
revise the pensionary benefits of the Government employees
who have retired or died while in service prior to 01.04.2012
and Clause 9.1 of the said Government Order dated
03.05.2012 provided for fixation of 22.50% of basic
pension/family pension as on 01.04.2012. However, the
respondent-Corporation issued an order dated 10.07.2012,
whereby the benefit of 22.50% of pension was extended to
persons who have retired prior to 01.04.2010 without
extending the same to the persons who have retired from
01.04.2010 to 31.03.2012 on the ground that their pay scales
have been revised. The petitioners who had attained the age
of superannuation between this period of 01.04.2010 to
31.03.2012 had therefore given representations to the
Corporation to extend the benefit of 22.50% of the basic
pension in terms of the settlement agreement dated
09.09.2011, wherein the Corporation had agreed that the
pensionary benefits including family pension shall be payable
and regulated as prevailing in the State Government. Since
the respondent-Corporation had failed to consider their
representations, they were constrained to approach this Court
by filing W.P.No.34371/2014 and W.P.No.27946/2014.
6. The respondent nos.2 & 3 - Corporation after entering
appearance in the writ petition, had filed detailed statement
of objections and subsequently also had filed additional
statement of objections. A preliminary objection with regard
to the maintainability of the writ petition was raised on the
ground that the petitioners had an alternative and efficacious
remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act. It was also
contended that the petitioners were not entitled for the
benefit of 22.50% enhancement as the petitioners had got
the benefit of pay revision after 01.04.2010 and if they are
given the additional benefit of 22.50%, they will be getting
double benefits i.e., enhancement in the pay pursuant to
revision as well as additional benefit of 22.50% in the
pension. The respondent nos.2 & 3 had also contended that
the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.15351-
352/2011 and other connected matters (Sri Kumbaiah &
Others Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation
Limited) was not applicable to the petitioners as the facts of
the said case are different. It was also contended that the
order passed in Kumbaiah's case (supra) was challenged by
respondent nos.2 & 3 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
SLP Nos.11477-11667/2013 and since the matter was seized
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is necessary to await the
outcome of the proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. It was also contended that if the prayer of the
petitioners is allowed, it would cause immense financial
burden to the respondent-Corporation.
7. The learned Single Judge, while disposing the writ
petitions, has held that the disparity in the salary drawn by
the employees would not be a criteria to reduce or enhance
the pensionary benefits, but what is relevant is the settlement
arrived under Section 12(3) of the I.D.Act, 1947, between the
Corporation and the employees union adopting the State
Government's order regulated from time to time, and
therefore, the pensionary benefits requires to be extended on
parity with the pensioners retired before 31.03.2012 in terms
of the settlement order dated 09.09.2011. The learned Single
Judge while arriving at such a conclusion has relied upon the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Kumbaiah's
case (supra) and has allowed the writ petition in part
directing respondent no.2 to consider the petitioner's
representation dated 20.08.2013 at Annexure-F in terms of
the judgment dated 18.11.2012 made in W.A.Nos.15351-
352/2011 and other connected matters (Kumbaiah's case)
and extend the benefit of the State Government Order dated
03.05.2012 in terms of the settlement dated 09.09.2011 in
an expedite manner preferably within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, subject
to the result of SLP.Nos.11477-11667/2013 pending before
the Hon'ble Apex Court.
8. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/respondents 2
& 3 has submitted that the relief granted to the petitioners
has got the effect of providing double benefit to them, and
therefore, there will be a disparity between the employees
retired prior to 01.04.2010 and who have retired after
01.04.2010, because the latter's pension would be on the
basis of revised pay which included the component of 22.50%
hike in the basic pay. He also submitted that the facts
involved in Kumbaiah's case was converse to the present
case, and therefore, the said judgment cannot be made
applicable to the case of the petitioners. He also submitted
that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the
huge additional financial burden that would be caused to the
Corporation in the event of extending the benefit prayed for
by the petitioners. He submitted that since the matter before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court is still pending, it was necessary
to await for the outcome of the said proceedings, in the event
of Kumbaiah's case being made applicable to the case of the
petitioners.
9. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners
submitted that judgment of the Division Bench in Kumbaiah's
case is squarely applicable to this case. He submitted that
though the facts of the said case are converse, ultimately, the
Division Bench has held that the Corporation is bound by the
settlement made with the employees union. He submitted
that for the purpose of considering the pensionary benefits,
the salary drawn by the employees would not be a criteria,
but the settlement between the Corporation and the
employees union binds the parties. He submitted that though
the judgment of the Division Bench in Kumbaiah's case is
pending consideration before the Supreme Court, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the said case has observed that the
payment made by the Corporation to the employees in terms
of the directions given by the High Court shall be subject to
the final adjudication of the special leave petitions. He,
therefore, submits that the learned Single Judge was justified
in applying the judgment of Kumbaiah's case and granting
reliefs to the petitioners.
10. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have attained
the age of superannuation between the period from
01.04.2010 to 31.03.2012. The Corporation has entered into
an agreement with the employees union on 09.09.2011.
Clause VIII(b) of the said settlement reads as under:
"(b) Pensionary benefits including Family
Pension etc., shall be regulated as prevailing in
the State Government from time to time."
11. The State Government has issued the Government
Order dated 03.05.2012, wherein Clause 9.1 of the said order
reads as under:
"9.1 The revised pension and family
pension of State Government servants who have
retired or died while in service prior to
01.04.2012 shall be the total of the following:
(i) Basic Pension/family pension as on
01.04.2012.
(ii) Dearness Allowance of 76.75% of basic
pension/family pension admissible as on
01.01.2012.
(iii) 22.50% of basic pension/family
pension as on 01.04.2012 (Interim relief of 15%
sanctioned in the Government Order No.FD
(Spl.) 265 PEN 2011 dated 22.11.2011 shall
stand absorbed in this increase of 22.50%). The
payment of interim relief of 15% is discontinued
from 01.04.2012.
The total amount computed as per (i) to
(iii) shall be subject to a minimum of Rs.4800/-
per month for pension/family pension and
maximum of Rs.39900/- per month and
Rs.23940/- per month in respect of pension and
family pension respectively.
12. The Corporation after passing of the Government Order
dated 03.05.2012 has sought to classify the petitioners who
retired prior to 01.04.2010 into two groups vide order dated
10.07.2012. The relevant clauses of the order dated
10.07.2012 reads as under:
"I. Revision of Pension and Family
Pension to those whoa are retired/death while in
service/death after retirement prior to
01.04.2010 i.e., prior to the date of Revision of
pay scale:
1. The revised pension and family
pension of employees who have retired or died
while in service prior to 01.04.2010 shall be the
total of the following:
i. .........
ii. .........
iii. 22.50% of basic
pension/family pension as on 31.03.2012
inclusive of 15% Interim Relief sanctioned
in Order No.KPTCL/B16/4677/2006-97
dated 31.12.2011 (on lines of G.O. No.FD
(SPL) 265 PEN 2011 dated 22.11.2011)
plus
iv. .........
II. Revision of Pension and Family
Pension to those who retired/death while in
service between to 01.04.2010 and 31.03.2012
and Death of a pensioner who retired between
01.04.2010 and 31.03.2012 i.e., after the date
of Revision of Pay Scale w.e.f. 01.04.2010.
[1] The revised pension and family
pension of employees who have retired or died
while in service between 01.04.2010 and
31.03.2012 shall be the total of the following:
(i) Basic Pension/family pension as on
01.04.2012, sanctioned in Revision of Pay scale
of 01.04.2010
(ii) Dearness Allowance of 76.75% as on
01.04.2012, sanctioned in Order
No.KPTCL/B16/3610/2003-04 dated 22.06.2012
[on lines of G.O.No.FD 81 PEN 2012 dated
03.05.2012].
13. Since there was distinguition between the employees
who retired/died prior to 01.04.2010 i.e., prior to the date of
revision of pay scale and who retired/died after 01.04.2010
before 31.03.2012 i.e., after the date of revision of pay scale,
the petitioners had prayed for extending the benefits of the
Government Order dated 03.05.2012 even to them in view of
the terms of the settlement agreement dated 09.09.2011. In
the Kumbaiah's case, the Division Bench of this Court has
held that the settlement made between the Corporation and
the employees union is binding on the parties and when the
terms of the settlement stipulated that pensionary benefits
including family pension shall be regulated as prevailing in
the State Government from time to time and the same be
made applicable to those employees who retired in the said
case between the period from 01.04.2003 to 01.07.2005.
Though the facts of the said case are converse to the facts of
the present case, in effect, the Division Bench of this Court
while allowing the employees prayer, has held that the
settlement between the Corporation with the employees
union is binding on the management and the Corporation was
directed to extend the revised pension/family pension to the
parties in the said case and also persons similarly situated in
terms of the Government Order which was refused to be
implemented by the Corporation. The said judgment is,
therefore, in principle squarely applicable to this case and the
learned Single Judge has rightly applied the same and
granted relief to the petitioners.
14. In fact, the Division Bench of this Court in Kumbaiah's
case has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of D.S.NAKARA & OTHERS VS UNION OF INDA - AIR
1983 SC 130, wherein it was held that the classification in
revised formula between the pensioners on the basis of
retirement is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case has
held in the following terms:
(i) that pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of
grace depending upon the sweet will of the
employer and that it creates a vested right
subject to Rules which are statutory in character;
(ii) that the pension is not an ex gratia payment but
it is a payment for the past service rendered; and
(iii) it is a social welfare measure rendering socio-
economic justice to those who in the hey day of
their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an
assurance that in their old age they would not be
left in lurch. Its payment is dependent upon an
additional condition of impeccable behaviour even
subsequent to retirement, that is, since the
cessation of the contract of service and that it can
be reduced or withdrawn as a disciplinary
measure.
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in special leave petition pending
before it arising out of Kumbaiahs' case, has observed that all
payments made by the Corporation pursuant to the orders
passed by the High Court shall be subject to the result of the
pending special leave petition. It is brought to the notice of
this Court that the Corporation has complied the said order
and has made payments to the petitioners in Kumbaiah's case
and also to similarly situated other employees.
16. In the case on hand, the learned Single Judge has
disposed of writ petition directing the Corporation to extend
the benefit of the Government Order dated 03.05.2012 in
terms of the settlement dated 09.09.2011 within a time
frame, and has observed that the said benefits extended shall
be subject to the result of the special leave petitions pending
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, we are of the
considered opinion that the learned Single Judge was
completely justified in applying the principles of Kumbaiah's
case and extending the benefit of the State Government
Order dated 03.05.2012 in terms of the settlement dated
09.09.2011 between the Corporation and the employees
union and we find no good reason to interfere with the said
order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, we proceed to
pass the following order:
Writ appeals are rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KK
