SRI SHANKAR KUMAR v. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

(BY SRI. G.S. NAVEEN KUMAR, ADV. FOR SRI MUKKANNAPPA S. B., ADV.) AND:

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR B M T C CENTRAL OFFICES B.M.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICES K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE -560 027.

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER B.M.T.C., WEST DIVISION KENGERI BANGALORE -560060. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADV. FOR R1 & R2) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.07.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO-51401/2016 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE REVISED PAY FIXATION ORDER DATED 30.06.2019 PASSED BY THE - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:23879-DB WA No. 1092 of 2022 HC-KAR RESPONDENT CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ETC. CORPORATION UNDER THE FACTS AND THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Appellant, petitioner before the learned Single Judge is before this Court under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 questioning the correctness and legality of

28.07.2022 in W.P.No.51401/2016 whereunder learned Single Judge rejected the petitioner’s challenge to fixation of his pay on the lower side i.e., Rs.44,070/- to Rs.42,410/- subsequent to his retirement.

2. Heard learned counsel Sri.G.S.Naveen Kumar for Sri. Mukkannappa.S.B., learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel Smt.H.R.Renuka for respondents. Perused the entire writ appeal papers. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:23879-DB WA No. 1092 of 2022 HC-KAR

Learned counsel Sri.G.S.Naveen Kumar for petitioner/appellant submit petitioner/appellant was before the learned Single Judge in the above stated writ petition questioning the impugned order dated 30.06.2016, as re-fixation of his pay from Rs.44,070/- to Rs.42,410/- was to his disadvantage subsequent to his retirement. It is submitted that the petitioner/appellant attaining superannuation, retired on 31.03.2016 whereas the revision of his pay has taken place on 30.06.2016 to his disadvantage. Learned counsel would submit that the said re-fixation to the disadvantage of the petitioner was without notice. Further, learned counsel would submit that such re-fixation could not have been effected subsequent to his retirement that too, more than 10 years after re- fixation of pay on his promotion.

Learned counsel Smt.H.R.Renuka would submit that the petitioner would not be entitled for the pay of Rs.44,070/- and he would be entitled for pay of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:23879-DB WA No. 1092 of 2022 HC-KAR Rs.42,410/- as his pay was wrongly fixed on his promotion on 01.09.2005 in the post of Establishment Supervisor. Learned counsel would point out that learned Single Judge has granted relief to the petitioner to the extent of recovery ordered directing the respondent-Corporation not to recover any amount from the petitioner. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate his entitlement for the higher pay. Thus, she prays for dismissal of the appeal.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ appeal papers, the only point which would arise for our consideration is as to, Whether the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge requires interference?

Answer to the above point would be in the Negative for the following reasons: The petitioner/appellant herein though challenged the entire re-fixation and recovery effected under order - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:23879-DB WA No. 1092 of 2022 HC-KAR dated 30.06.2016 (Annexure-E), restricted his prayer before the learned Single Judge to the extent of recovery effected under impugned order dated 30.06.2016, which is evident from the paragraphs 4 and 7 of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, learned Single Judge placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS VS. RAFIQ MASIH (WHITE WASHER) AND OTHERS1 allowed the writ petition to the extent of recovery from the petitioner/appellant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant contended that the re-fixation itself is not proper, that too, after more than 10 years. The petitioner/appellant has failed to establish his entitlement for higher pay. Unless the petitioner/appellant establishes his entitlement for pay Rs.42,410/- instead Rs.44,070/-, petitioner/appellant would not be entitled for such pay. It is the case of the respondents that while re-fixing the pay 1 (2015) 4 SCC 334 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:23879-DB WA No. 1092 of 2022 HC-KAR of the petitioner/appellant on promotion as Establishment Supervisor, pay of the petitioner was wrongly fixed by granting allowance more than the entitled rate of increment.

Thus, when the petitioner/appellant has not raised contention with regard to re-fixation of pay before learned Single Judge petitioner/appellant has failed to establish his entitlement for higher pay, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the writ appeal and accordingly, writ appeal stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27