Karnataka High Court
Prabhakar M. Bhat vs The Chairman on 16 February, 2022
Bench: R Natarajpresided Byrnj
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.76669/2013 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
Shri Prabhakar M.Bhat S/o. Mahadev Bhat,
Since dead by his L.Rs.
1A. Geetha P.Bhat W/o. Late Prabhakar Bhat,
Age 63 years, Occ: Housewife,
1B. Radhika R.Bhat, W/o. Rohit G.Bhat,
D/o. Late Prabhakar Bhat,
Age 34 years, Occ: Housewife,
1C. Ravindra P.Bhat, S/o.Late Prabhakar Bhat,
Age 31 years, Occ: Engineer,
All are R/o.: Mahalaxmi Layout, Hubli Road,
Near KSRTC Depot, Sirsi, Dist.: Uttara Kannada.
... Petitioners
(By Shri Narayan V.Yaji, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Chairman, KEB, Now KPTCL,
Cauveri Bhavan, Bengaluru.
2. The Director Administration Office,
(Admn & HRD) KEB, now KPTCL,
Cauveri Bhavan, Bengaluru.
... Respondents
(By Shri S.M. Tonne for Shri B.S. Kamate , Advocate)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to
consider the representation of the petitioner dated 07.05.2012,
bearing No.NIL, vide Annexure-P to the writ petition and consequently
direct the respondents herein to give all consequential benefits
including difference amount on re-fixation of salary benefits of
commutation, leave encashment, D.A. difference, increment benefits
and also re-fix the pensionary benefits of the petitioners.
:2:
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing B-Group, this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of
mandamus to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the
representation dated 07.05.2012 and consequently to direct
them to grant all consequential benefits including differential
amount on re-fixation of salary benefits, leave encashment,
difference in dearness allowance, increment benefits and also to
re-fix the pensionary benefits of late Shri Prabhakar M.Bhat.
2. Late Shri Prabhakar Bhat was appointed by the
respondent No.1 as a Junior Engineer in terms of an office
memorandum dated 24.09.1979 and he reported to duty on
03.10.1979. He claimed that during his probationary period, the
pay scale applicable to a Junior Engineer in the respondent was
revised with effect from 01.04.1980. His probationary period was
declared on 02.10.1980 and his basic pay was wrongly fixed at
Rs.630/- instead of Rs.660/-. He claimed that this anomaly
continued till his retirement on 31.03.2008 as the Assistant
Executive Engineer at Sirsi. He claimed that his final basic pay
was to be Rs.17,005/- but it was wrongly fixed at Rs.15,520/-.
He therefore submitted a representation to the respondent which
were of no avail. He claimed that in respect of a co-employee
named Shri M.G. Prasannakumar, the respondents had restored
the minimum pay scale during his period of probation. However,
the respondents treated him differently without granting the
same benefit. Therefore, he prayed that the respondents be
directed to consider his representation and to grant all the
benefits. He died during the pendency of this writ petition and his
legal representatives were brought on record.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that similar question arose for consideration in the
batch of writ petitions and that this Court in terms of the order
dated 29.08.2012 rejected the said writ petitions. The learned
counsel submitted that Shri Prabhakar Bhat did not raise any
issue complaining about the wrong fixation of his pay scale till
his retirement and therefore, he cannot now belatedly seek for
correction of that mistake.
4. I have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties.
5. One of the questions that fell for consideration before
the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. Nos.4743-48/2010 and
other connected matters are as follows:
"(2) Whether the Officer/employees would be
entitled to the benefit that was granted to Prasanna
Kumar by a Division of this Court in Writ Appeal
No.5607/1998 and affirmed by the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7763/2001?
(3) Whether the Officer/employees can be denied
the benefit in view of the Supreme Court having
rejected the impleading application by similarly
placed officers in the case of Prasanna Kumar when
they had approached the Supreme Court, on the
ground that their application was belated?
6. Insofar as the case of the Prasanna Kumar is
concerned, that was a case where he was appointed as a Junior
Engineer in August 1977. The High Court in W.A. No.5607/1998
while considering his request for grant of pay scale held as
follows:
"14. In the result the petitioner succeeds. A Junior
Engineer (now Assistant Engineer) on probation is
eligible to start on the minimum in the revised scale
of pay as revised by Annexure-D order. In other
words, he will be entitled to be paid Rs.720/- as
against Rs.690/- as indicated in Annexure I to
Annexure D. As Annexure E is contrary to what is
stated above, and is issued only by the ministerial
officer of the respondent, the same is invalid and set
aside. The writ petition is allowed."
7. The Division Bench of this Court held that all those
Class-IV probationers appointed on or after 01.04.1976 shall be
granted minimum of the revised pay scale and the difference if
any between the existing emoluments and the revised
emoluments shall be protected.
8. Aggrieved by such an order, the Board preferred a
Special Leave Petition, which was admitted and numbered as
Civil Appeal No.7763/2001. During the pendency of the Civil
Appeal, 53 Officers who are similarly placed as that of N.G.
Prasanna Kumar sought impleadment in Civil Appeal
No.7763/2001. The Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the Civil
Appeal but left open the question of law to be determined in an
appropriate case. After the disposal of the Civil Appeal, the Board
extended the benefit to the N.G. Prasanna Kumar and paid him
the arrears of the entire period after re-fixing his pay as directed.
Those Officers, who had sought impleadment in Civil Appeal
No.7763/2001 filed the writ petitions in W.P. Nos.4743-48/2010
before this Court seeking identical reliefs. During the pendency
of the writ petitions, the Board granted the benefits both to the
workman as well as to the officers alike. Consequently, the Board
granted a notional fixation of pay from the date of their
appointment, but granted monetary benefits from 01.12.2008.
9. In the present case, Shri Prabhakar Bhat the
petitioner was appointed on 24.09.1979 and therefore, he was
entitled to be treated like the petitioners in
W.P. Nos.4743-48/2010.
10. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is
disposed off, directing the respondents to consider the
representation of the deceased Shri Prabhakar Bhat in the light
of the order passed by this Court in W.P. Nos.4743-48/2010 and
other connected matters. This shall be complied within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of
this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Vnp*
