PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR N v. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT APPEAL NO
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2645-DB WA No. 1130 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT APPEAL NO. 1130 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: P. SHANMUGAM S/O LATE H.M. PATTACHAR AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS RETIRED SENIOR ASSISTANT CHAMUNDI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. PERIYAPATNA SUB DIVISION HUNUSURU SUB DIVISION HUNUSURU TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT-571 105.
Legal Reasoning
Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka …APPELLANT
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. KALYAN R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE GENERAL MANAGING (ADM & HRD) KPTCL, CAUVERY BHAVAN BENGALURU-560 009. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2645-DB WA No. 1130 of 2024 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELEC.), O & M DIVISION (ELECL) CHAMUNDI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. MYSORE CIRCLE MYSORE-571 105. …RESPONDENTS (BY MR. SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R.1; SMT. RAKSHITHA D.J., ADVOCATE FOR R.2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.03.2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO.41714 OF 2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND
Decision
CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION, ETC. THIS APPEAL, 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 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2645-DB WA No. 1130 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN) Aggrieved by the order dated 15.03.2024 passed in writ petition No.41714 of 2013, the petitioner therein has preferred this writ appeal. 2. The appellant filed writ petition No.41714 of 2013 with the following prayer: vide supply Company "WHEREFORE, the petitioner pray that to set aside this Hon'ble Court be pleased the communication by Director, Administration and HRD to Executive Engineer, Electrical O & M, Chamundi Electrical bearing No.KPTCL/B16/31813/2012-13 dated: 17-8-2012 in so far as application of law of limitation and denying the arrears of salary and issue further direction to the respondents to draw and pay arrears of salary and revise and refix the pension of the petitioner consequent upon revision of pay and draw and pay arrears of pension alongwith interest at the rate of 18% of P.A. and cost of the writ petition and issue such other direction as deems fit, in the circumstances of the case." 3. The learned Single Judge taking into consideration the circular issued by the respondents regarding the application of limitation in respect of the claims of its employees regarding their pay fixation and related matters and also the decision of this Court - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2645-DB WA No. 1130 of 2024 in writ petition No.5898 of 2009, has passed the impugned order dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. It is contended by the appellant that the learned Single Judge has disregarded the seniority of the appellant and the anomaly that has resulted in the action of the respondents resulting in his juniors being paid more than that of the appellant. 4. The appellant is said to have been appointed as Junior Assistant cum Meter Reader on 20.05.1974 in the erstwhile Karnataka Electricity Board. The respondents have succeeded to the said Karnataka Electricity Board at present and the appellant continued as their employee. The appellant successfully passed the Departmental examination in December, 1978 and availed benefit of one increment. He was further promoted to the cadre of Assistant on 23.04.1980 and thereafter, to the post of a Senior Assistant. It is submitted that one R.Shridharan was appointed as Junior Assistant in the year 1974 and he completed the Departmental examination in the year 1986. His pay was increased immediately thereafter to Rs.1,420/-, however, the appellant as on 01.04.1986 was being paid only a sum of Rs.1,360/- resulting in his junior drawing a higher salary than him. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2645-DB WA No. 1130 of 2024 It is submitted that this anomaly in pay scale was due to grant of additional increment in a different pay scale. The pay scale for the same post was lower as the appellant had joined earlier and was increased by the time the said Sridharan joined later. Representations were given to the respondents by the appellant to set right the anomaly and there were several round of litigations conducted. As the same has not been cured even till today, the appellant preferred writ petition No.41714 of 2013. 5. The facts reveal that the respondents have been giving increments to its employees who passed the Departmental examination. Further, the pay scales for the posts have been revised by the respondents from time to time taking into consideration the inflation in the Society and the recommendations of several pay commissions. This has resulted in an anomalous situation wherein a person like the appellant who joined the services of the respondents earlier at a lower pay scale, upon passing of the Departmental examination was entitled to an increment of a lesser amount and another employee who joined the services of the respondents at a much later stage whose starting salary was much higher than what the appellant received - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2645-DB WA No. 1130 of 2024 at the time of joining, upon passing of the Departmental examination was paid an increment much more than that of the appellant resulting in persons like the appellant receiving lesser amount. 6. Taking into consideration the aforementioned anomaly, the respondents have issued a circular to set right the same. However, by its circular they have limited the period for which an employee can seek for re-fixation of the pay scale. The said circular fixes the limitation for a period of three years. The said circular as observed in the order of the learned Single Judge reads as under: '"No.KEB/B16/2031/83-84/II. Board Secretariat, Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore-560009. CIRCULAR "Sub: Application of 'Law of Limitation' in respect of employees' claims - Regarding. Ref: This office Circular of even No. dated 26.9.1996. To avoid any injustice to the employees the Controlling / Drawing Officers may consider refixation of pay if there are any wrong fixations or if they had difficulty in interpreting the orders of the Board issued from time to time, based on the facts and merits of each case and not - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2645-DB WA No. 1130 of 2024 on general grounds, only to the extent of refixation. So far as payment of arrears accruing due to such refixation, the same shall be limited to a period of three years only. This is in modification of Circular dated 26.9.1996 cited above." 7. The aforementioned circular has not been challenged by the appellant. On the same cause of action, the appellant had earlier filed writ petition No.5898 of 2009 wherein this Court has passed the following order: for the "3. Though learned counsel the respondents, had initially resisted the present petition, on the further assertion of the petitioner that the anomaly that was complained of was created in the year 1986 itself and the comparison sought to be made by the learned counsel for the respondents to the pay of the petitioner and the said Shridharan to point out that the pay of the petitioner being more than that of the said Sridharan, is misleading, since there was indeed an anomaly even prior to the dates mentioned by the learned counsel for the respondents. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the respondents having obtained further instructions, brings to the attention of this Court, an order dated 6th July 2009 under similar circumstances where the comparable employees have been given Time Bound increments by virtue of which, if such an employee is drawing a larger pay than his junior, the pay of the senior requires to be stepped-up and accordingly, he would concede that insofar as the petitioner also such stepping-up is warranted for a period of approximately three years, the details of which - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2645-DB WA No. 1130 of 2024 shall be worked out in due course and he submits that the respondents shall pass appropriate orders to step- up the pay. Recording this submission, the petition stands disposed of. The petition is allowed, in terms as above." The aforementioned judgment has attained finality. 8. As the order in writ petition No.5898 of 2009 was not implemented by the respondents immediately, the appellant preferred CCC No.787 of 2012, wherein the following order is passed: ORDER "The respondents have given step up in the pay scale three years prior to the date of representation. It is the contention of the complainant that they should be given step up from the date of anomaly. There are no specific directions in the order with regard to the date on which the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of step up in the pay scale. Therefore, the complainant is given liberty to challenge the endorsement by separate proceedings in accordance with law. Accordingly, petition closed." 9. The appellant contends that during the pendency of the contempt petition, the respondent No.2 has issued a communication dated 17.08.2012, which reads as under: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2645-DB WA No. 1130 of 2024 "With reference to the above subject, as per the Corporation Order No.KPTCL/B16/3436/2008-09 dated 06.07.2009, approval has been accorded and it is directed to cope up the pay of Sri P.Shanmugam Senior Assistant (Retired), W & O Sub Division, CESC, Piriyapatna, with Sri. R.Sridharan, Assistant, with effect from 01.04.1986 fixing the Pay of Rs.1420.00 in the Pay Scale Rs.860- 2110, the amount of financial benefit that may cause from this pay fixation is subject to the limit of "Law of Limitation" and to make payment, his next annual pay increment may be released from 01.04.1987." the pay that of level of Pay Comparative List of the employees enclosed along with your letter has been returned herewith." It is contended that the order passed in CCC No.787 of 2012 reserved liberty to the appellant to challenge the communication dated 17.08.2012 issued by the respondent No.2 and that gives him a right to agitate his case afresh irrespective of the order passed in writ petition No.5898 of 2009 and the learned Single Judge without appreciating the same, has dismissed the writ petition. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents justify the order passed by the learned Single Judge and prays for dismissal of the writ appeal. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:2645-DB WA No. 1130 of 2024 11. The questions that arises for consideration is whether the claim of the appellant has attained a finality by the order passed in writ petition No.5898 of 2009 and whether the learned Single Judge was correct in dismissing the writ petition taking into consideration the circular of the respondents extracted above and order of this Court in writ petition No.5898 of 2009. 12. As can be seen in the order passed in writ petition No.5898 of 2009, the same has been passed taking into consideration the circular of the respondents wherein the appellant has been granted a relief to the extent of stepping up of his pay for a period of three years and not beyond it. The appellant has not challenged the said order and it has attained finality. In CCC No.787 of 2012, liberty is reserved to the appellant to challenge the impugned endorsement if the same is not in accordance with the order passed in writ petition No.5898 of 2009 and it does not give him a liberty otherwise. Admittedly, the Endorsement/Communication dated 17.08.2012 issued by the respondent No.2 is in tune with the order passed in writ petition No.5898 of 2009. Having accepted the order passed in writ petition No.5898 of 2009, the appellant does not have the liberty to re-agitate his claim. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:2645-DB WA No. 1130 of 2024 13. For the said reasons, we do not find any error in the well reasoned order of the learned Single Judge and the writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19