Karnataka High Court
S Sudhindra S/O. Late Srinivas ... vs The Karnataka Power Corporation ... on 12 January, 2023
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
-1-
WP NO.67596 OF 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.67596 OF 2011 (S-PRO)
BETWEEN:
1. S SUDHINDRA S/O. LATE SRINIVAS MURTHY
OFFICE MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENG.
AKARNATAKA, POWER CORPORATION LTD.,
AMBIKANAGAR.
2. SURESH HEGDE S/O. CHANDRA HEGDE
AGE: 59 YEARS, OFFICE MANAGER,OFFICE OF THE
EXECUTIVE ENG. KARNATAKA POWER CORP.LTD.,
KADRA
3. VASANT M. SUNTANKAR S/O. MAHADEV SUNTANKAR
AGE: 58 YEARS, OFFICE MANAGER,OFFICE OF THE
EXECUTIVE ENG. KARNATAKA POWER CORP.LTD.,
KADRA
4. M.G. MAHARAJPETH S/O. GURUPADAPPA
AGE: 60 YEARS, OFFICE MANAGER,K.C. CIRCLE, KEB
QUARTERS, HALIYAL ROAD,DANDELLI
5. BALANCHANDRA S. HANDRAL S/O. SHEKARAPPA
HANDRAL
AGE: 65 YEARS, OFFICE MANAGER,PLOT NO. 11,
KUMARVYAS NAGAR,HUBLI.
6. VENKATESH N.NAIK S/O. NARAYAN NAIK
AGE: 63 YEARS, OFFICE MANAGER,OFFICE OF THE
PERSONNEL OFFICER,KPCLTD. KADRA DIST: UTTAR
KANNADAR
-2-
WP NO.67596 OF 2011
7. PRAKASH D. SHASTRY S/O. DATTAREYA SHASTRY
AGE: 63 YEARS, OFFICE MANAGER,KPC HOSPITAL
KADRA DIST: UTTAR KANNADAR
8. B.V. RAMAKRISHNA S/O. VENKATESH SHASTRY
AGE: 59 YEARS, OFFICE
MANAGER,EXE.DIRECTOR,KANT POWER CORP LTD.
RAICHURTHERMAL POWER STATION,
SHAKTINAGAR,DIST: RAICHUR.
9. MUKAMBE HEGDE D/O. LATE GAJANAN HEGDE
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: OFFICE MANAGER,OFFICE
SUPERINTENDING ENG. P.P.C.LTD.,
GANESHGUDIDIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
10. GEETA KULKARNI W/O. MURALIDHAR KULKARNI
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: OFFICE MANAGER,OFFICE OF
THE CHIEF ENG. KANT. POWER CORP. LTD.,
SUDARSHAN COMPLEX, SHESHADRI ROAD,
BANGALORE.
11. SR. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O. HANCHIMATH
AGE: 63 YEARS, OFFICE MANAGERKANT. POWER
CORP. LTD., JOGFALLS DIST: SHIMOGGA.
12. GURURAJ H. CHIPALKATTI S/O. HANUMANTARO
AGE: 61YEARS, OFFICE MANAGERNO.109, ULAVI,
CHANNABASASESHWAR NAGAR,DHARWAD, TQ and
DIST: DHARWAD.
13.00. SUBASH VENKAR RAO YADAPPANAVAR
S/O. VENKAT RAO, AGE: 65 YEARS, KPC COLONY,
GANESGUDI,DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
-3-
WP NO.67596 OF 2011
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD.
REPTED. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,82, SHAKTI
BHAVAN, RACE COURCE ROAD,BANGALORE.
2. THE ASSIST. GENERAL MANAGER,
82 SHAKTI BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK. R. KALYANSHETTY, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO: I.
QUASH THE ORDER/ENDORSEMENT DATED:19/11/2010 IN
NO.A-1R8A0/4338, VIDE ANNEXURE-N PASSED ON BEHALF OF
MANAGING DIRECTOR (BY THE SPECIAL OFFICER ON DUTY) OF
THE RESPONDENT NO.1. II. DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO RE-
FIX THE SALARY BY ADDING ONE INCREMENT TO THE SALARY
OF THE PETITIONERS AND RE-FIX THE SALARY AND PAY ALL
ARREARS TO THEM WITH INTEREST RIGHT FORM THEIR
PROMOTION TILL THIS DAY AND IN SO FAR AS RETIRE
EMPLOYEES ARE CONCERNED THEY MAY BE GIVEN THE
BENEFIT AND RE-FIXATION OF THEIR PENSIONARY BENEFIT
AND ARREARS; AND ETC.
THIS PETITION/APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this writ petition, petitioners have questioned the
endorsement dated 19th November, 2010 passed by the
respondent No.1-Corporation inter alia sought for direction to
the respondent to refix the salary by adding one increment to
WP NO.67596 OF 2011
the salary of the petitioners and upon refixing the salary,
release arrears of salary with interest.
2. The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition
are that, petitioners were working as Office Managers with the
respondent-Corporation. There are two categories of
employees in the respondent-Corporation, viz. corporate
category as well as non-corporate category/workman category.
If a workman of non-corporate/workman category is promoted
to the corporate category, then he ceases to be a non-
corporate/workman and such person is not entitled for benefit
under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent-
Corporation has introduced time-bound advancement scheme,
extending benefit of one increment to the workmen who have
completed seven years of service with the respondent-
Corporation as on January, 1986. Petitioners have availed the
said benefit from the respondent-Corporation. It is the case of
the petitioners that petitioners were promoted as Office
Mangers during the period 1995-1999 and as per regulation 4.8
of Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (Cadre, Recruitment,
Probation, Promotion and Seniority) Rules, 1997, the
respondent-Corporation has to promote as per the said Rules,
WP NO.67596 OF 2011
and thereafter re-fix the salary and pensionary benefits. In this
connection, due to some anomaly in refixation of salary and
pensionary benefits, some of the employees have approached
this Court in Writ Appeals No.634 of 2006 and 6074-85 of 2010
and the Division Bench of this Court, by its order dated 08th
March, 2010, disposed of the appeal with a direction to the
respondent-Corporation to reconsider the issue afresh in view
of the Regulation 4.8 of Regulations referred to above.
Thereafter, the respondent-Corporation by its order dated 19th
November, 2010, passed the impugned order and feeling
aggrieved by the same, petitioners have presented this writ
petition.
3. I have heard Sri Ravi Hegde, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners and Sri Ashok R. Kalyanshetty,
learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
4. Sri Ravi Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners invited the attention of the Court to the direction
issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-
mentioned writ appeals, particularly paragraph 3 of the
judgment, and argued that the said aspect has not been
WP NO.67596 OF 2011
considered by the respondent-Corporation, Accordingly, sought
for interference of this Court.
5. Per contra, Sri Ashok R. Kalyanshetty, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-Corporation sought to justify the
impugned communication dated 19th November, 2010.
6. In the light of the submission made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, this Court, in Writ Appeal
No.634 of 2006 and connected appeals, at paragraph 3 of the
judgment, held that the competent authority shall consider
Regulation 4.8 of the Regulations referred to above, and pass
appropriate orders. Careful examination of the impugned
communication, would indicate that the respondent-Corporation
has not considered Regulation 4.8 of Regulations referred to
above, in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench and
in that view of the matter, it is a fit case for remand to the
respondent-Corporation to consider the case of the petitioners
in accordance with law, specifically the direction issued by the
Division Bench of this Court in the aforementioned writ appeals.
The respondent-Corporation shall consider and pass
appropriate orders, in terms of the above, within a period of
WP NO.67596 OF 2011
two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order. Petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LNN
