Karnataka High Court
Gangahanumaiah vs The Chief Law Officer on 11 July, 2022
Bench: Acting Chief Justice, J.M.Khazi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M. KHAZI
W.A. NO.4420 OF 2017 (S-KSRTC)
IN
W.P.No.17438 OF 2015 (S-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
GANGAHANUMAIAH
S/O HANUMAIAH, 77 YEARS
R/O SANNAPPANAPALYA
HIREHALLI POST
TUMKUR TALUK-572 168.
... APPELLANT
(BY MR. GANGAHANUMAIAH, PARTY-IN-PERSON)
AND:
THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER
KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICES
K.H. ROAD, BANGALURU-560027.
... RESPONDENT
(BY MRS. H.R. RENUKA, ADV.,)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 30/05/2017 IN WP 17438/2015 OF
THE HON'BLE SINGLE BENCH AND ISSUE DIRECTIONS
2
TO THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE INTEREST AS IN
THE CASE OF OTHER EMPLOYEES TO WHOM ALREADY
PAID.
THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 has been filed
against the order dated 30.09.2017 passed by the
learned Single Judge, by which the appellant has been
held entitled to interest at the rate of 6% on the
amount of gratuity.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal
briefly stated are that the appellant was an employee
of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' for short).
The appellant superannuated in the year 1997. It
appears that the appellant made a claim with regard
to payment of interest on the amount of gratuity. The
aforesaid claim was adjudicated by a division bench of
this court in a writ appeal viz., W.A.Nos.2053-
2115/2013 in which it was held that the appellant is
entitled to payment of interest at the rate of 6% on the
amount of gratuity. Admittedly, the appellant did not
assail the aforesaid order passed by division bench of
this court and the said order attained finality. It
appears that the some other employees filed SLP (C)
No.33440-33496/2010. The Special Leave Petition
was decided by the Supreme Court. The relevant
extract of the order reads as under:
4. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties to the lis, we are of the opinion
that the judgment and order passed by the
High Court requires a little tinkering by us.
In our view, the appellants are entitled for
payment of interest at the rate of 10 per
cent on the difference of gratuity amount
payable from the date of their entitlement.
5. Accordingly, we allow these
appeals in part and direct the respondents
to pay interest at the rate of 10 per cent on
the difference of gratuity amount from the
date of their entitlement till payment. Such
payment shall be made within three months
from today.
5. The civil appeals stand disposed
of accordingly.
6. We make it clear that this order
shall not be treated as a precedent in any
other case.
Thus, from the aforesaid order passed by the
Supreme Court, it is evident that only the parties
before the Supreme Court were held entitled to
interest at the rate of 10% per annum.
3. The appellant made a claim for grant of
interest at the rate of 10% on the amount of gratuity.
The aforesaid claim was rejected by an endorsement
dated 04.03.2014 and the appellant was held entitled
to interest at the rate of 6% on the amount of gratuity.
The appellant challenged the aforesaid order in a writ
petition, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge
by order dated 30.05.2017. In the aforesaid factual
background, this appeal has been filed.
4. Party-in-person submitted that he being a
retired employee is entitled to interest at the rate of
10% on gratuity. On the other hand, learned counsel
for the respondent submitted that the order passed by
the division bench of this court has attained finality
and the appellant is no longer entitled to interest at
the rate of 6%. It is also pointed out that the amount
of gratuity has already been paid to the appellant.
5. We have considered the rival submissions
and have perused the record. Admittedly, in the
appeal filed by the appellant, he was held entitled to
payment of interest on the amount of gratuity at the
rate of 6%. The appellant did not challenge the
aforesaid order in Special Leave Petition. The order
passed by division bench has attained finality and
binds the parties including the appellant.
6. So far as reliance placed by the appellant
on the decision in SLP (C) Nos.33440-33496/2010 is
concerned, suffice it to say that in the aforesaid order,
the Supreme Court itself has held that it shall not be
treated as precedent in any other case. Therefore, the
decision of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid Special
Leave Petition is of no assistance to the appellant.
Admittedly, the interest at the rate of 6% per annum
on the amount of gratuity has already been paid to
the appellant.
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find
any ground to differ with the view take by the learned
Single Judge. In the result, the appeal fails and is
hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
