Karnataka High Court
Umeshaiah vs The Managing Director Kptcl on 12 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:5780
WP No. 29232 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.29232 OF 2023 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
UMESHAIAH
S/O HONNASHAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
RETIRED ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
R/AT 99, 1ST FLOOR
2ND MAIN, 3RD CROSS
OPP. RANGANATHAPURA
MAGADI MAIN ROAD
NEAR KHB LAYOUT-562 114
SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFITS IS NOT CLAIMED
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SRINIVASA K, ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by
ALBHAGYA 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KPTCL, CORPORATE OFFICE
Location:
HIGH CAUVERY BHAVAN
COURT OF BENGALURU - 560009
KARNATAKA
2. THE DIRECTOR (A AND HR)
KPTCL,
CAUVERY BHAVAN
BENGALURU - 560009
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.RAKSHITA D.J, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 TO R.2;
SRI.B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R.3 AND R.4)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:5780
WP No. 29232 of 2023
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DTD 04.07.2023 VIDE
ANNX-D AND TO GRANT ONE ANNUAL INCREMENT FOR THE
YEAR OF SERVICE RENDERED BY THE PETITIONER FROM
01.07.2022 TO 30.06.2023 TO PROPERLY FIX HIS BASIC PAY
AND TO PAY ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL MONETARY/
RETIREMENT BENEFITS AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The writ petition is filed seeking mandamus
against respondents to consider representation of the
petitioner dated 04.07.2023 as per Annexure-D and
to grant one annual increment for the year of service
rendered by the petitioner from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2023
and thereby fix his basic pay and to pay all the
consequential monetary/retirement benefits.
2. The short point that falls for consideration
before this Court is;
NC: 2024:KHC:5780
Whether respondents are bound to
consider petitioner's claim in regard to grant
of one annual increment for having rendered
service from 01.07.2022 to 30.06.2023
before attaining age of superannuation?
3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner has
placed on record the judgment rendered by the
Co-ordinate Bench in batch of writ petitions i.e.,
W.P.No.11822/2019 and connected matters, which cover
the entire issue involved in the present case on hand.
The petitioner has also placed on record the judgment
rendered by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal
No.4193/2017 and also judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court confirming the Division Bench judgment in Civil
Appeal No.2471/2023 ( SLP (C) No.6185/2020).
4. The contention of the respondents that the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court is subjected
to review under Review Petition pending before the
Hon'ble Apex Court and the judgment rendered by the
Co-ordinate Bench in batch of petitions is also subjected to
NC: 2024:KHC:5780
an appeal before Division Bench and the same is pending
consideration cannot be acceded to.
5. If Division Bench judgment granting one
annual increment for having completed one year of service
is affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the issue involved
in this case is no more res-integra. Merely because the
review petition is filed by the respondents - Corporation
that in itself will not constitute a bar for this Court to
decide the petition in the light of the law laid down by the
Division Bench in W.A.No.4193/2017. Petitioner has
rendered one year of service before attaining age of
superannuation. The Division Bench, while examining
identically placed employees, has held that employees are
entitled to get annual increment. The Division Bench was
of the view that an increment is an incidence of
employment and an employee gets an increment by
working full year and drawing full salary.
NC: 2024:KHC:5780
6. Respondents categorical denial of the
petitioner rightful claim solely on the basis of retirement
status is legally untenable and egregiously undermines the
spirit and intent of pertinent statutory provisions. The
entitlement to the additional increment is irrevocably tied
to the length of service rendered beyond prescribed period
in terms of Regulation 40(1) of the board before
superannuation and thus remains unaffected by
petitioner's retirement. To hold otherwise would
perpetuate an unjustifiable deprivation of petitioner's
rightful entitlements and contravenes the over arching
principles of equity and fairness governing employment
relations. All these complex issues are meticulously
examined by the Division Bench and the direction was
issued to the respondents - Corporation to grant one
annual increment. The reasons and findings recorded by
the Division Bench in W.A.No.4193/2017 are affirmed by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2471/2023
(SLP (C) No.6185/2020).
NC: 2024:KHC:5780
7. In the light of the law laid down by the
Division Bench and confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, the petitioner has a legal right to claim one annual
increment in terms of Regulation 40(1) of the Karnataka
Electricity Board Employees' Service Regulations. The
respondents - Corporation is liable to grant one increment
in terms of the above said Rule. Therefore, this is a fit
case to issue mandamus.
8. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to pass the
following;
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The respondents - Corporation is
hereby directed to consider representation of
the petitioner dated 04.07.2023 as per
Annexure -D bearing in mind the law laid down
by the Division Bench in W.A.No.4193/2017 and
confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil
NC: 2024:KHC:5780
Appeal No.2471/2023 (@SLP (C) No.6185/
2020).
(iii) This exercise shall be completed
within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order.
(iv) Pending applications, if any, are also
disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NBM
