Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director vs Lakshminarayana on 26 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
WRIT APPEAL NO. 347 OF 2024 (S-R)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
No.82, SHAKTI BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
...APPELLANT
(BY SHRI. PRAMOD NAIR, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W.
SHRI. PRADYUMNA L. NARASIMHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . LAKSHMINARAYANA
S/O LATE R. MUTHURAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
RESIDING AT No.3
MUNIREDDY STREET
J C NAGARA
BENGALURU-560 006
2 . ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT
GOVENRMENT OF KARNATAKA
ENERGY DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
...RESPONDENTS
-
2
(BY SHRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA, PARTY-IN-PERSON
/CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT No.1;
SMT. SHWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO (a) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 03RD NOVEMBER 2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.36470 OF 2018 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 18.06.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
This Writ Appeal is filed challenging an order dated
03.11.2023 passed in W.P.No.36470/2018 (S-R) by the
learned Single Judge, directing the payment of pensionary
benefits to the respondent herein considering his previous
service of 8 years and 10 months under the State
Government also as pensionary service.
2. We have heard Shri. Pramod Nair, learned senior
counsel as instructed by Shri. Pradyumna L. Narasimha
-
learned Advocate appearing for the appellant as well as Shri.
Lakshminarayana-respondent No.1, who appears in person.
3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant submits that the respondent had joined the service
of the State Accounts Department and was on deputation at
the Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited
('KFCSCL' for short) from 01.04.1965 to 31.01.1974. He
had applied for the post of Accountant in Karnataka Power
Corporation Limited ('KPCL' for short) vide the application
dated 04.08.1973 and the application was forwarded from
the office of the Director, KFCSCL to the KPCL on
06.08.1973. Thereafter, an appointment offers dated
18.12.1973 was issued to the respondent and he had joined
the KPCL on 01.02.1974. The KPCL Pension Scheme was
introduced on 18.03.1982. The Karnataka Power Corporation
Employees Pension Scheme Rules, 1983 ('KPCL Pension
Rules' for short) were introduced by the KPCL on
08.03.1983. On 21.10.1999, the respondent submitted a
representation to the KPCL seeking extension of pensionary
benefits counting his previous experience as well. The
-
respondent retired from service on 31.05.2000. The
appellant's representation was rejected by Annexure 'K' -
endorsements dated 04.02.2004 and 11.06.2004. Even
thereafter, representations were filed and communications
ensued and the respondent's request was ultimately rejected
on 28.05.2016. The respondent as party-in-person filed
W.P.No.36470/2018 challenging the rejection of his claim
and seeking directions to consider his earlier service as
qualifying service for pension.
4. The appellant herein resisted the Writ Petition on
the ground that the respondent has resigned from service of
the KFCSCL before joining the appellant - KPCL and that he
had not obtained prior permission to take up the
appointment. It was contended that the pension scheme did
not provide for reckoning of earlier service unless the
appointment in the appellant - KPCL was on absorption.
5. The learned Single Judge considered the
contentions raised by the parties and the defence of the
appellant. Referring to Rule 252(b) of the Karnataka Civil
-
Service Rules ('the KCSR' for short), the learned Single
Judge found that the respondent's application had been duly
forwarded by the KFCSCL to the appellant and therefore the
permission contemplated under Rule 252(b) of the KCSR is
implied from the conduct of the parties. Further, it was
found that when the respondent sought to resign from
service of KFCSCL, they issued a letter on 18.01.1974
requesting the appellant to extend his joining time till
01.02.1974. It was therefore found that, it was with proper
permission that the respondent had resigned from his earlier
post to join the service of the appellant - KPCL. It was
further found that though Section 10 of the KPCL Pension
Rules pertains to absorbed employees, the intent of the said
Rule is to count the past service put in by such employees in
State or Central Organisations or Organisations owned and
controlled by the State or Central Governments are entitled
to reckon the past service put in by them in such
organisations on being absorbed in the KPCL. It was
therefore found that an interpretation which denies the
benefit of counting of qualifying service to a pensioner ought
-
not to have been adopted by the appellant. The Writ
Petition was accordingly allowed. The endorsements issued
by the KPCL rejecting the representations of the respondent
were set-aside and the respondent was held entitled to draw
pension considering his previous service of 8 years and 10
months also as qualifying service. The arrears were directed
to be paid within two months with 9% interest from the date
of superannuation until the date of payment.
6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant submits that the learned Single Judge had not
considered the inordinate delay which had occurred in filing
of the Writ Petition. It is submitted that the respondent
having retired from service on attaining the age of
superannuation in the year 2000 had approached this Court
filing his Writ Petition only in the year 2018. It is submitted
that repeated representations making the same request
cannot be taken into account while considering whether the
Writ Petition was belated.
-
7. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the
case of Rabindranath Bose and Others v. The Union of
India and Others reported in 1970 (1) SCC 84, the
learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant contends
that once one representation has been rejected, the making
of another representation on similar lines would not enable
the explanation of the delay. Further, it is contended that
the provisions of the KCSR are not applicable to service
under the appellant and that the reliance placed on Rule
252(b) of the KCSR was therefore misconceived.
8. It is further contended that there was no
provision in the KPCL Pension Rules to reckon earlier service
put in by an employee who has resigned and taken up
employment with the appellant for the purpose of calculation
of pension. It is contended that Rule 10 of the Rules, which
regulates the counting of pension in the case of absorption
was totally inapplicable in the instant case where the
respondent had resigned from service to join the service of
the appellant. Further, it is contended that the appellant
had been paid gratuity in lieu of pension in terms of Rule
-
210 of the KCSR and after having drawn such amount he
could not have claimed the pension from the appellant.
9. In support of the above contentions, the learned
senior counsel appearing for the appellant also places
reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of L.R.
Patil v. Gulbarga University, Gulbarga reported in 2023
SCC OnLine SC 1110.
10. The learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for respondent No.2 has relied on the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and
Others v. O.P. Gupta reported in (2022) 18 SCC 382.
11. We have considered the contentions advanced.
With regard to the question of delay in approaching this
Court, we notice that the subject matter of the dispute
raised by the writ petitioner was with regard to the quantum
of pension to which he was entitled. It is an admitted fact
that the pension is a deferred payment of service benefits
and that a wrong fixation of pension is a continuing wrong
and a recurring cause of action arises enabling the pensioner
-
to seek a redressal of the said wrong. The respondent had
made representations seeking counting of his prior service
even when he was still in the service of the appellant.
Thereafter, on his retirement in 2000 also, he had made the
request which was rejected by an endorsement in 2004 on
the ground that there is no rule permitting the reckoning of
such prior service. The appellant had taken up the matter
with the Government and we notice that the last of such
representations was rejected only in 2016. These aspects
have been considered by the learned Single Judge. Further,
we find no material supporting the contention of the
appellant that the respondent had been granted gratuity in
lieu of pension under Rule 210 of the KCSR by the
Government or the KFCSCL. The Government, which is a
party before us, does not have a case that gratuity in lieu of
pension under Rule 210 of the KCSR had been paid to the
respondent. The respondent who appears in person asserts
that no such payment had been claimed or made.
12. It is an admitted fact that the Writ Petitioner had
worked for more than 8 years in the Government Service.
-
The said service was admittedly pensionable. He had
resigned from that service only to take up the employment
in the appellant - Corporation, which is also pensionable.
The appellant is a State Corporation. In the circumstances,
we are of the opinion that the reasoning of the learned
Single Judge and the attempt made to reconcile the
provisions of the KPCL Pension Rules so that the benefit of
pension for pensionable service is not denied to the
employee only legal and proper.
13. Having considered the contentions advanced, we
are of the opinion that the contentions raised by the
appellant before the learned Single Judge have been
considered in full. We are in agreement with the opinion
expressed by the learned Single Judge. We find no good
grounds to differ from the findings of the learned Single
Judge which are supported by sound reasoning, in this intra-
Court appeal. The appeal fails and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
-
Pending interlocution applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(DR. K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE
cp*
