Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka Power Transmission ... vs Javari Gowda on 6 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:5498-DB
WA No. 724 of 2024
C/W CCC No. 1174 of 2024 (CIVIL)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT APPEAL NO. 724 OF 2024 (S-R)
C/W CCC NO. 1174 OF 2024 (CIVIL)
IN W.A. No. 724/2024
BETWEEN:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED
CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 009
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by 1. JAVARI GOWDA
AMBIKA H B AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
Location: R/AT DOOR NO.KT 328
High Court NEW MARIGOWDA LAYOUT
of Karnataka II CROSS, BEHIND KALEGOWDA
HIGH SCHOOL MANDYA - 571 401
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 13, 2024, PASSED BY THE Ld. SINGLE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:5498-DB
WA No. 724 of 2024
C/W CCC No. 1174 of 2024 (CIVIL)
JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION No.1566/2016,
WITH EXEMPLARY COSTS.
IN CCC NO. 1174/2024 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI JAVARAI GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
S/O. LATE JAYARAME GOWDA
RESIDING AT DOOR NO.KT 328
NEW MARIGOWDA LAYOUT
II CROSS, BEHIND KALEGOWDA
HIGH SCHOOL
MANDYA - 571 401
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI PANKAJ KUMAR PANDEY
MANAGING DIRECTOR
THE KARNATAKA POWER
TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD.
CAUVERY BHAVAN
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009
...ACCUSED
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
...PRO FORMA RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF
WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.1566/2016 DATED 13.02.2024 AT
ANNEXURE-A.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:5498-DB
WA No. 724 of 2024
C/W CCC No. 1174 of 2024 (CIVIL)
THIS APPEAL AND CCC COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)
The present is an appeal filed by the appellant-the Karnataka
Power Transmission Corporation Limited which is directed against
judgment and order dated 13.02.2024 in Writ Petition No.1566 of
2016 whereby, the petition filed by the respondent-original
petitioner came to be allowed.
2. As per the operative orders passed by learned Single Judge,
the impugned order of penalty passed against the petitioner came
to be set aside. Consequential, directions were issued by learned
Single Judge to pay to the petitioner the arrears of salary from
30.08.2002 till 30.06.2011, which was the date when the petitioner
reached the age of superannuation.
NC: 2025:KHC:5498-DB
C/W CCC No. 1174 of 2024 (CIVIL)
2.1 The second direction was to accord promotion to the
petitioner for which he was entitled to during the period between
30.08.2002 and 30.06.2011. There was a further direction
requiring the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited
(KPTCL) to fix the pay scale and pay of the petitioner and to fix the
pension on such basis. It is also directed to pay the arrears to the
petitioner which may arise on account of refixation of pay scale and
pension.
2.2 Learned Single Judge in the next directed that the KPTCL
shall pay interest on the amounts payable to the petitioner and that
interest shall be paid at the rate of 8%. Furthermore, cost of
Rs.50,000/- was awarded to the petitioner to be paid by the
appellant-KPTCL.
3. When the appeal came up for consideration, learned
advocate Mr. Shirish Krishna for the appellant stated that in
response to the contempt petition, all the directions issued by
learned Single Judge regarding payment of salary, refixation of
pension, arrears of pension, etc. have been complied with
NC: 2025:KHC:5498-DB
C/W CCC No. 1174 of 2024 (CIVIL)
excepting the interest amount and the cost awarded by learned
Single Judge.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted, on instructions
of the appellant, that he confines the challenge to the judgment and
order of learned Single Judge insofar as it imposes cost of
Rs.50,000/- and directs the payment of benefits to the petitioner
with interest at the rate of 8%.
5. Having heard learned advocate Mr. Shirish Krishna for the
appellant and learned advocate Mr. T.P Vivekananda for the
respondent-original petitioner, the Court is of the view that learned
Single Judge did not commit any error in requiring the appellant to
pay the interest on the amount payable to the original petitioner.
5.1 In paragraph 17 of the order, the following observations are
made which justify the grant of interest on the payments becoming
due to the petitioner,
"The respondents being an instrumentality
of the State cannot be permitted to act in a
manner which is so brazenly unfair and
arbitrary. The moment the order of
punishment was quashed, unless there was a
specific order denying the arrears of salary,
the KPTCL was both morally and legally
NC: 2025:KHC:5498-DB
C/W CCC No. 1174 of 2024 (CIVIL)
bound to pay to the petitioner the entire
arrears of salary for the period during which
the petitioner was kept out of employment. In
other words, from the date on which an order
of compulsory retirement was passed i.e., on
30.08.2002 till the petitioner attained the age
of superannuation, the KPTCL would be
bound to pay to the petitioner the arrears of
salary that he is entitled to."
5.2 While above observations justify the award of interest, the
Court is of the view that interest at the rate of 8% is on an higher
side. Therefore, it is directed by modifying the rate of interest that
the original petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6%,
which would be reasonable.
6. As far as the imposition of cost of Rs.50,000/- is concerned,
the Court finds that it was a direction not warranted to be passed
by learned Single Judge. The cost part is set aside.
7. The appeal is partly allowed and accordingly disposed of.
The contempt petition will not survive in view of the above
order partially allowing the appeal. However, it is directed that if
any compliance is left out, it shall be done within eight weeks.
NC: 2025:KHC:5498-DB
C/W CCC No. 1174 of 2024 (CIVIL)
In view of disposal of the appeal, the interlocutory
application, as may be pending, would not survive and it stands
accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(M.I.ARUN)
JUDGE
AHB
