The Mysore Sugar Company Ltd vs Sri.S.T.Ramachandra
2025 Latest Caselaw 8443 Kant

Karnataka High Court

The Mysore Sugar Company Ltd vs Sri.S.T.Ramachandra on 16 September, 2025

                                           -1-
                                                   NC: 2025:KHC:36842-DB
                                                      WA No. 992 of 2024


                HC-KAR




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                      DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

                                        PRESENT
                      THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                          AND
                           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
                           WRIT APPEAL NO. 992 OF 2024 (S-RES)
               BETWEEN:

               1.   THE MYSORE SUGAR COMPANY LTD.,
                    (GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING)
                    REPRESENTED BY ITS
                    MANAGING DIRECTOR
                    SUGAR TOWN
                    MANDYA - 571 402.
                                                           ...APPELLANT
               (BY SRI R. GIRISHKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

               AND:

Digitally      1.
signed by           SRI S.T. RAMACHANDRA
SRIDEVI S           AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
Location:           S/O THAMME GOWDA
High Court          R/AT NO. 352/B, 4TH MAIN
of Karnataka
                    GOKULAM 2ND STAGE
                    OPP. TELEPHONE EXCHANGE
                    MYSORE - 570 002.
                                                         ...RESPONDENT
               (BY SRI K.K. VASANTH, ADVOCATE)
                                  -2-
                                             NC: 2025:KHC:36842-DB
                                               WA No. 992 of 2024


 HC-KAR




      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 21.12.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU IN W.P
No. 42674/2013 (S-RES) & ETC.

      THIS    APPEAL,      COMING       ON    FOR     PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
       and
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI


                         ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal, impugning an

order dated 21.12.2023 [impugned order], passed by the learned

Single Judge in W.P.No.42674 / 2013 (S-RES). In terms of the

impugned order, the appellant was directed to pay interest at the

rate of 6% per annum on the amounts of Rs.96,796/- and

Rs.99,433/- from 08.07.2011 and 09.06.2011 respectively, within

one month from the date of said order. The respondent had filed

the said writ petition [W.P.No.42674/2013], inter alia claiming that

the appellant had not settled its claims for salary for the period from

NC: 2025:KHC:36842-DB

HC-KAR

01.01.1998 till 31.12.2000, amounting to Rs.96,796/- as ordered

by an order dated 08.03.2011 passed in W.A.No.2652/2004 as well

as the consequential benefits amounting to Rs.99,433/- as directed

in terms of the order dated 09.06.2011 passed in

W.P.No.45492/2003. During the course of the proceedings, the

appellant had paid the aforesaid amounts. There is no direction in

the impugned order for payment of the aforesaid amounts.

Therefore, the appellant's grievance is confined to the direction to

pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the aforesaid sum.

2. It is material to note that the respondent had joined the

services of the appellant as a Medical Officer on 04.08.1971. He

had filed a writ petition being W.P.No.21084/2000, raising a

grievance regarding fixation of his salary. He claimed that one Dr.

M.L. Naganna was also working as an Assistant Medical Officer

under the respondent, from 07.05.1975 possessing the

qualifications of MBBS, CDP but was drawing a higher basic pay

with effect from 01.01.1983. The said writ petition was dismissed

by an order dated 11.02.2004. Aggrieved by the same, the

respondent had preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of

this Court being W.A.No.2652/2004. The said appeal was allowed.

NC: 2025:KHC:36842-DB

HC-KAR

The Court found that the appellant had discriminated against the

respondent by merely equating his remuneration with Dr. M.L.

Naganna although he had throughout held a supervisory post of

Medical Officer, as against a lower inferior post of Assistant

Medical Officer held by Dr. M.L. Naganna. The Court held that the

respondent was entitled to be placed in a higher scale as against

Dr. M.L. Naganna. Accordingly, the court directed the appellant to

approve an appropriate pay-scale of fixation of emoluments of the

respondent with effect from August 1983.

3. Apparently, the said order was not complied with and the

respondent preferred a contempt petition being CCC

No.2245/2011. The said Contempt Petition was disposed of by an

order dated 17.02.2012, whereby it was noted that the appellant

had sent a letter setting out calculations of the amount of arrears

payable to the respondent and enclosing therewith cheque for an

amount of Rs.2,00,000/- dated 09.02.2012 and another cheque of

Rs.1,05,080/- dated 09.02.2012 towards full and final settlement of

its claims. The appellant had not appeared before the court on

17.02.2012 and it was assumed that his grievance was addressed.

NC: 2025:KHC:36842-DB

HC-KAR

4. The respondent filed another writ petition being,

W.P.No.45492/2003, impugning orders dated 30.09.2003 and

01.10.2003 passed by the appellant and further claiming that the

respondent be treated to have been in service of the appellant /

Company until the end of office hours of 31.12.2002. It was the

respondent's case that the age of superannuation was 60 years

and not 58 years. However, the said claim was rejected by the

appellant and the appellant superannuated him from service at the

age of 58 years. The respondent's contention was accepted but in

the meantime, the respondent's age had increased beyond 60

years and he could not have been re-instated. The said writ petition

was allowed by an order dated 09.06.2011. However, the Court

did not grant the respondent's request for payment of salary but

held that the interest of justice would be met if the two additional

years of service which were unfairly denied to the petitioner are

taken into account for payment of all consequential benefits.

5. The appellant claims that in compliance with the said orders,

the consequential benefits that would arise, were calculated and a

sum of Rs.54,462/- was paid towards the difference in gratuity and

Rs.17,811/- was paid towards additional increments for the years

NC: 2025:KHC:36842-DB

HC-KAR

2001 and 2002 along with the difference in leave encashment

benefits. Notwithstanding the above, the issue regarding

calculation of arrears of salary as directed in terms of the order

dated 08.03.2011 passed in W.A.No.2652/2004 as well as the

order dated 09.06.2011 passed in W.P.No.45492/2003, continued

to persist. According to the respondent, the amounts as calculated

and paid by the appellant were less than the amounts payable to

the respondent. In the aforesaid backdrop that the respondent filed

the writ petition being [W.P.No.42674/2013] which has been

disposed of in terms of the impugned order.

6. As noted above, the respondent claimed that arrears of

salary to the extent of Rs.96,796/- and the consequential benefits

amounting to Rs.99,433/- remained outstanding. During the course

of the proceedings relating to the writ petition, the said amounts

were paid. Thus, there is no dispute that the respondent was

entitled to the said amounts in terms of the orders as mentioned

above. Undeniably, there is an inordinate delay in payment of the

amounts which the respondent was entitled to. In view of the

above, the appellant's case that no interest is payable by it cannot

be accepted.

NC: 2025:KHC:36842-DB

HC-KAR

7. In Authorised Officer Karnataka Bank v R.M.S Granites

Pvt Ltd & Ors : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4695, the Supreme Court

had observed as under:

"It may be mentioned that there is misconception about interest. Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal accretion on capital. For example if A had to pay B a certain amount, say ten years ago, but he offers that amount to him today, then he has pocketed the interest on the principal amount. Had A paid that amount to B ten years ago, B would have invested that amount somewhere and earned interest thereon, but instead of that A has kept that amount with himself and earned interest on it for this period. Hence, equity demands that A should not only pay back the principal amount but also the interest thereon to B."

8. In Dr Poornima Advani & Anr. Vs Government of NCT &

Anr: 2025 INSC 262, the Supreme Court had referred to the

concept of interest explained in Authorised Officer Karnataka

Bank v R.M.S Granites Pvt Ltd & Ors (supra) and held as under:

"17. Thus, when a person is deprived of the use of his money to which he is legitimately entitled, he has a right to be compensated for the deprivation which may be called interest or compensation. Interest is paid for

NC: 2025:KHC:36842-DB

HC-KAR

the deprivation of the use of money in general terms which has returned or compensation for the use or retention by a person of a sum of money belonging to other."

9. In view of the above, we find no infirmity with the impugned

order. Notwithstanding that there may not be any statutory

provision for payment of any interest, the fact that the respondent

has been denied the amount due to him for an inordinately long

period, would clearly warrant the respondent to be compensated

with interest.

10. The appeal is unmerited and accordingly, dismissed.

11. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

Sd/-

(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

(C M JOSHI) JUDGE KS