Writ Appeal No. 347 of 2024 · The High Court · 2023
Case Details
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 (BY SHRI. PRAMOD NAIR, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W. SHRI. PRADYUMNA L. NARASIMHA, ADVOCATE) ...APPELLANT 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
Legal Reasoning
(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 - 3 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 - 4 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 - 5 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 - 6 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 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 - 8 210 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
Decision
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 - 9 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. - 10 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. - 11 Pending interlocution applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE cp*