Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka Power Transmission vs Sharada J Chougule on 6 June, 2022
Bench: Krishna S Dixit, P.Krishna Bhat
-1-
W.A. No.100663/2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100663 OF 2015 (S-R)
BETWEEN:
THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD.,
NOW HUBBALLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO., LTD., (HESCOM)
P.B.ROAD, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580 025
DIST: DHARWAD.
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SOMANATH TONNE FOR SRI. B.S. KAMATE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. SHARADA J. CHOUGULE,
AGE 63 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: HOUSE NO.752, II CROSS, BHAGYA NAGAR,
BELAGAVI-590 006, DIST: BELAGAVI.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAM M APTE, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THAT AFTER CALLING FOR
THE RECORDS AND PROCEEDS OF THE CASE THIS HON'BLE
Digitally
COURT BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
signed by J
MAMATHA 11.09.2015, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.
J Location:
MAMATHA DHARWAD
Date: NO.66053/2009 AND FURTHER THE W.P. NO.66053/2009 FILED
2022.06.10
11:52:16
+0530 BY THE RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER HEREIN MAY KINDLY
BE DISMISSED BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL WITH COST.
-2-
W.A. No.100663/2015
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This Intra Court appeal seeks to call in question
the judgment of a learned Single Judge in W.P.
No.66053/2009 (S-R) disposed off on 11.09.2015,
whereby the appellant is directed to pay the family
pension and its arrears with interest at the rate of 6%
p.a. from the date of death of her husband in harness
till 31.12.1986 and for the subsequent period till
01.01.1987 with enhanced interest of 12% p.a. A
period of three months has been granted for making
the payment of all the arrears with a default clause of
18% interest.
2. After service of notice, the respondent
widow of the deceased employee having entered
appearance through her counsel opposes the petition
making submission in justification of the impugned
order and the reasons on which it has been
constructed.
W.A. No.100663/2015
3. Brief facts of the case:
(a) The husband of the writ petitioner was employed
with effect from 18.12.1974 and he died in harness
because of vehicular accident on 23.07.1978.
Admittedly, the widow had applied for the terminal
benefits and pension as per the then extant
Regulations. In her W.P. No.14790/2005, she was
permitted to make a representation for grant of
pension under the New Policy. However, her
representation came to be rejected vide endorsement
dated 16.06.2008 holding that she is not entitled to
enhanced pension under the New Regulations.
(b) The above said endorsement having been set at
naught by the impugned judgment, a direction to pay
the family pension and arrears under the New
Regulations as mentioned above have been issued by
the learned Single Judge. The same is put in
challenge.
W.A. No.100663/2015
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and having perused the appeal papers, we are
inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the
following reasons:
(i) The impugned judgment directing extension of
pensionary benefits under the New Regulations cannot
be sustained inasmuch as the husband of writ
petitioner admittedly died in harness on 23.07.1978
and a family pension was settled under the
Regulations then obtaining. The New Regulations are
apparently prospective in operation. A strong case has
to be made out by a party for seeking enhanced
benefit under the New Regulations, and that is not
made before us.
(ii) The learned Single Judge has granted the relief
to the writ petitioner by placing reliance on the
decision of another learned Single Judge in W.P.
No.25639/1993, disposed off on 06.03.1996. In the
said decision, the employee concerned was continuing
W.A. No.100663/2015
in service as on the date the new Scheme has been
promulgated. This essential factor having been lost
sight of, there is error apparent on the face of
impugned judgment.
(iii) There is force in the vehement contention of
learned panel counsel for the appellant - Corporation
that the husband of the writ petitioner having died
long before the New Scheme was promulgated,
eventually there was no contribution from the side of
employee in terms of the said scheme and therefore,
benefits thereunder cannot be claimed by the widow of
such employee. Even this aspect has escaped the
attention of the learned Single Judge.
(iv) The above apart, the writ petitioner has been
sanctioned family pension under the then existing
scheme and accordingly she is being paid too. In
matters like this, hands of the Courts are tied by the
statutory policy which governs the rights of parties. In
matters like this, Courts can not go by sympathies.
W.A. No.100663/2015
In the above circumstances, this appeal succeeds
and the impugned judgment of the learned Single
Judge is set at naught, costs having been made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Vnp*
