Karnataka High Court
Sri M Ramesh Babu vs The Managing Director on 7 June, 2023
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:19333
WP NO.19814 OF 2012
C/W
WP NO.7722 OF 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.19814 OF 2012 (S-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.7722 OF 2013
IN WP NO.19814 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
SRI. M. RAMESH BABU
W/O MANJUNATHACHAR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ELECTRICAL ENGINEER,
TECHNICAL SECTION,
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed by
ARUN KUMAR M S
Location: HIGH COURT
(BY SRI. S.B. MUKKANNAPPA, ADVOCATE)
OF KARNATAKA
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
CORPORATE OFFICE,
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
2. THE DIRECTOR (ADMN & HUMAN RESOURCES)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:19333
WP NO.19814 OF 2012
C/W
WP NO.7722 OF 2013
CORPORATE OFFICE,
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 24TH JUNE, 2009 PASSED
BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-D; DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO SANCTION TWO ADVANCE INCREMENTS TO
THE PETITIONER FROM THE DATE OF HIS INITIAL
APPOINTMENT AND GRANT ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL
BENEFITS IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS
COURT IN WRIT APPEAL NO.1656-57 OF 1991 DATED 09TH
JULY, 1993 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AS WELL AS THE ORDER DATED
28TH FEBRUARY, 1994 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.41836
OF 1993 VIDE ANNEXURE-H; AND ETC.
IN WP NO.7722 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
SMT. SUNEETHA G.K.
W/O M. NAGENDRA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (CIVIL),
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ELECTRICAL ENGINEER (ELE.),
B.M.W. NORTH DIVISION,
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
ANANDA RAO CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.B. MUKKANNAPPA, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:19333
WP NO.19814 OF 2012
C/W
WP NO.7722 OF 2013
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
CORPORATE OFFICE,
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
2. THE DIRECTOR (ADMN & HUMAN RESOURCES)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
CORPORATE OFFICE,
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SHUBHA S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22ND SEPTEMBER, 2010 ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-C; QUASH THE
ENDORSEMENT DATED 21ST DECEMBER, 2012 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-M; DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO SANCTION TWO ADVANCE INCREMENTS TO
THE PETITIONER FROM THE DATE OF HER INITIAL
APPOINTMENT AND GRANT ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL
BENEFITS IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS
COURT IN WRIT APPEAL NO.1656-57 OF 1991 DATED 09TH
JULY, 1993 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AS WELL AS THE ORDER DATED
28TH FEBRUARY, 1994 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.41836
OF 1993 VIDE ANNEXURE-H; AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:19333
WP NO.19814 OF 2012
C/W
WP NO.7722 OF 2013
ORDER
In these writ petitions, petitioners have challenged the
impugned endorsements issued by the respondent-
Corporation, wherein the respondent-Corporation has
declined to sanction two advance increments to petitioners
from the date of their initial appointment in the respondent-
Corporation. Since, the common question of law and facts
are involved in these writ petitions, the same are taken-up
together for final disposal.
2. In Writ petition No.19814 of 2012, the petitioner
averred that the petitioner is a Post-Graduate degree holder
in Master of Engineering (Electronics) and he has been
appointed for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer in the
respondent-Corporation as per appointment order dated 05th
February, 2007 (Annexure-A). The petitioner has
satisfactorily completed the probationary period as per
Official Memorandum dated 10th February, 2009 (Annexure-
B). It is the case of the petitioner that the relevant
qualification for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer is
only a Graduation in Engineering, however, the petitioner
NC: 2023:KHC:19333
WP NO.19814 OF 2012
C/W
WP NO.7722 OF 2013
had acquired Post-Graduation in Master of Engineering
(Electronics) and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the
benefit under clause 47(E) of the Karnataka Electricity Board
Staff Regulation. The grievance of the petitioner is that the
representation made by him, seeking sanction of two
advance increments under the aforementioned provision was
rejected by the respondent-Corporation by endorsement
dated 24th June, 2009 (Annexure-D). Feeling aggrieved by
the same, the petitioner has approached this court.
3. In writ petition No.7722 of 2013, the petitioner
averred that petitioner is a Bachelor of Engineering (Civil)
and completed the Post-Graduation in Master of Technology
(Structures) during the year, 2003. The petitioner was
appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer as per the
appointment order dated 25th July, 2007 (Annexure-A) and
she had satisfactorily completed her probationary period and
accordingly, the respondent-Corporation has declared the
probationary period as per Official Memorandum dated 29th
June, 2010 (Annexure-B). The grievance of the petitioner is
that the petitioner has acquired the Post-Graduation degree
NC: 2023:KHC:19333
WP NO.19814 OF 2012
C/W
WP NO.7722 OF 2013
in Master of Technology prior to her appointment with the
respondent-Corporation, and therefore, she is entitled for
the benefit of two advance increments in terms of the
regulation referred to above. Being rejected from
sanctioning of advance increments by the respondent-
Corporation by Endorsement dated 21st December, 2012
(Annexure-M), the petitioner filed this writ petition.
4. Heard Sri. S.B. Mukkannappa, learned counsel
appearing for petitioners and Sri. Shirish Krishana and Smt.
Subha S., learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
Corporation.
5. Sri. S.B. Mukkannappa, learned counsel appearing
for petitioners contended that the basic requirement for
extending two advance increments for in-service candidates
is, as to acquire higher qualification of Post-Graduation in
Master of Engineering and as the petitioners in these writ
petitions had acquired the Post-Graduate qualification in the
respective disciplines are entitled for the benefit in terms of
the clause 47(E) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Staff
Regulation. He further invited the attention of the Court to
NC: 2023:KHC:19333
WP NO.19814 OF 2012
C/W
WP NO.7722 OF 2013
the reasons assigned in the impugned endorsements and
argued that the said endorsements suffer from infirmity as
no proper reasons have been assigned while declining to
grant two additional increments to petitioners. He further
emphasized the reasons assigned in the impugned
endorsements that the petitioners herein had acquired the
Master of Engineering prior to their appointment with
respondent-Corporation and therefore, the said reasons
could not withstand touchstone of Article 14 of Constitution
of India. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this
Court.
6. Per contra, Sri. Shrish Krishna and Smt. Shubha S.,
learned counsel representing the respondent-Corporation
invited the attention of the Court to the clause 47(E) of the
Karnataka Electricity Board Staff Regulation and sought to
justify the action of the respondent-Corporation. It is the
specific case of the learned counsel appearing for
respondents that the benefit of extending two additional
increments would be for the employees those who have
passed Masters in Engineer(Electrical) and as the petitioners
NC: 2023:KHC:19333
WP NO.19814 OF 2012
C/W
WP NO.7722 OF 2013
have acquired Masters in Engineering of different disciplines
apart from the Electrical discipline and therefore, petitioners
are not entitled for the benefit of two advance increments.
Accordingly, they sought to justify the impugned
endorsements. It is also contended by the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents that the respondent-
Corporation has issued order dated 11th June, 2015,
withdrawing the sanction of advance increment scheme in
the respondent-Corporation. Accordingly, they sought for
dismissal of the writ petitions..
7. In the light of the rival submission made by learned
counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the
benefit of two advance increments would be extended to
such employees those who acquired Masters in Engineering,
however, as contended by learned counsel appearing for
respondent-Corporation that the benefit of additional
increments will be extended to those who had acquired
Masters of Engineering (Electrical). In the guise of this
submission, on careful examination of impugned
endorsements, I am of the view that the impugned
NC: 2023:KHC:19333
WP NO.19814 OF 2012
C/W
WP NO.7722 OF 2013
endorsement suffer from infirmity as the reasons assigned
by the respondent-Corporation while rejecting the
representation made by the petitioners, seeking extension of
two advance increments was on the ground that the
petitioners had acquired Master of Engineering prior to their
appointment in the respondent-Corporation. The said
reason does not conform with the Article 14 of the
Constitution of India, as the same is unreasonable and
unjust. In that view of the matter, I find force in the
submission made by learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners that the reasons stated in impugned
endorsements is required to be interfered with in these writ
petitions. Accordingly, endorsement dated 24th June, 2009
(Annexure-B) in Writ Petition No.19814 of 2012 and
endorsement dated 21st December, 2012 (Annexure-M) in
Writ Petition No.7722 of 2013 issued by the respondent-
Corporation are set-aside and the respondent-Corporation is
directed to consider the case of petitioners afresh in
accordance with law, in terms of the relevant Regulation
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:19333
WP NO.19814 OF 2012
C/W
WP NO.7722 OF 2013
prevailing as on the date of issuance of impugned
endorsements.
8. It is made clear that as the impugned endorsements
are of the year 2009 and 2012, the respondent-Corporation
is restrained from making applicability of order dated 11th
June, 2015 to the case of the petitioners. Petitioners are
permitted to approach the respondent-Corporation for their
claim with regard to grant of advance increments within two
weeks from the date of receipt of this order and respondent-
Corporation shall consider the same, in terms of the
observation made above, within an outer limit of eight weeks
thereafter. In the result, writ petitions are allowed.
SD/-
JUDGE
ARK
