Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller vs Tanaji S/O Siddaji Mane (T S Mane) on 29 July, 2024
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10667-DB
WA No. 100193 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100193 OF 2024 (S-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
DHARWAD RURAL DIVISION, DHARWAD-580001,
REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION, GOKUL ROAD,
HUBBALLI, DHARWAD-580030,
REPD. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
... APPELLANTS
Digitally signed
by JAGADISH T
(BY SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSMANI, ADVOCATE)
R
Location: High
Court of AND:
Karnataka
Dharwad Bench
1. TANAJI S/O. SIDDAJI MANE, (T. S. MANE),
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
OCC. RETIRED EMPLOYEE OF NWKRTC,
R/O. NARAYANAPURA ONI, KAMLAPUR ROAD,
SHANTI COLONY, PLOT NO.17,
DIST. DHARWAD-580008.
2. SHANTAPPA N. SURYAVAMSHI,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
OCC. RETIRED EMPLOYEE OF NWKRTC,
R/O. HEBBALLI P. O, HEBBALLI,
TQ AND DIST.DHARWAD-580001.
3. IQUBAL AMMERSAB KHAJI,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10667-DB
WA No. 100193 of 2024
AGED 63 YEARS,
OCC. RETIRED EMPLOYEE OF NWKRTC,
R/O. ARAVIND BELLAD MARG,
URDU SCHOOL ROAD, TEJASWI NAGAR,
DIST. DHARWAD-580002.
4. KRISHNA H. MORE (K. H. MORE),
AGE 63 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED EMPLOYEE
OF NWKRTC,
R/O. MALAPUR LAST BUS STOP,
RAJAJINAGAR, 2ND CROSS,
DIST. DHARWAD-580008.
5. VASANTH S/O. VENKATARAO SHINDE,
(V. V. SHINDE),
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
OCC. RETIRED EMPLOYEE OF NWKRTC,
R/O. MARATA COLONY, 8TH CROSS,
DIST. DHARWAD-580008.
6. VEERANNA S/O. KALAPPA HOOLI,
(V. K. HOOLI),
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
OCC. RETIRED EMPLOYEE OF NWKRTC,
R/O. JANATHA PLOT, HEBBALLI,
TQ AND DIST. DHARWAD-580001.
... RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
22.02.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P NO.
100157/2024 AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION IN ITS ENTIRETY IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10667-DB
WA No. 100193 of 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
This intra-Court appeal is filed by the Corporation
assailing the order of the learned Single Judge dated
22.02.2024 passed in WP No.100157/2024, wherein the
appellant was directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of the respondents' retirement till the
date it was paid on the gratuity and the leave encashment
amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt
of copy of the order. Being aggrieved, the Corporation is in
appeal.
2. Sri. Prashant S Hosamani, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant/Corporation submits that in the
absence of any provision to claim interest for the delay in
payment of leave encashment benefit and gratuity, the learned
Single Judge has committed an error, in awarding interest at
the rate of 9% per annum. It is submitted that the
appellant/Corporation could not recover from the financial crisis
that occurred during Covid-19 pandemic period. It is further
submitted that the State Government has issued an order
whereby the rate of interest is prescribed at 5.55% per annum
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10667-DB
for the delayed payments. Hence, he seeks to interfere with the
impugned order of learned Single Judge by allowing the appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the
appellant/Corporation and meticulously perused the material
available on record.
4. The undisputed facts are that the respondents have
worked as employees of the Corporation and their terminal
benefits like gratuity & leave encashment were paid belatedly.
The learned Single Judge taking note of the decision of
a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WA No.100420/2023, has
ordered for payment of interest at the rate of 9% per annum
on the gratuity & leave encashment from the date of their
retirement till payment. Insofar as entitlement of interest for
the delayed payment of terminal benefits of the employee, law
is fairly settled. This Court in the case of Dr. Chandrashekar
B. Kambara vs. Bangalore University & Others1 has held
that the action of the University in settling the retirement
benefits of the petitioner therein in the pay-scale of reader was
illegal and arbitrary and therefore, the University was directed
to pay interest for the delayed settlements of retirement
ILR 2003 KAR 2125
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10667-DB
benefits at 12% per annum. Considering the analogy of the
aforesaid decision, we are of the considered view that the
learned Single Judge is justified in directing the award of
interest for the delayed settlement of terminal benefits. The
contention of the panel counsel that Corporation could not
make payment due to financial crisis cannot be a ground to
deny the legitimate entitlement of the employees.
5. Another contention of the Corporation is that the
Government has issued some order whereby rate of interest is
prescribed at 5.54% for the delayed payments. However, the
learned counsel for the appellant is unable to place on record
the said order nor is able to answer as to under which statute,
such order is passed by the State. In the absence of any
cogent and acceptable material, such contention, cannot be
considered. It is a trite law that the retirement benefits are not
a bounty and they are a matter of right of employee that
cannot be withheld at the sweet will or whim of the employer
vide D. S. Nakara Vs. Union of India2. In the instant case,
admittedly, there is delay in settling the retirement benefits like
gratuity & leave encashment without any justification. Hence,
(1983) 1 SCC 305
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10667-DB
we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge is
absolutely justified in directing appellant/Corporation to pay
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of their
retirement till actual payment.
6. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any
error or perversity in the impugned order calling for
interference in the appeal. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed
as being devoid of merits.
The Registry to send a copy of this judgment to all the
private respondents by speed-post immediately.
Pending applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration.
Sd/-
(KRISHNA S.DIXIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
JUDGE
JTR
