writ petition nos.4743-48/2010 (s-res) c/w w.p nos. 8624...

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N. KUMAR

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. KEMPANNA

WRIT PETITION Nos.4743-48/2010 (S-RES)C/W

W.P Nos. 8624/2007, 8625/2007, 6638/2008,7356/2008, 8458/2008, 8834/2008, 9729/2008,9730/2008, 11798/2008, 40258-40260/2010,

17792-17796/2010, 11300-302/2011,

22142-145/2011 (S-RES)

IN W.P.Nos.4743 – 48/2010 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI R MUNISWAMY,S/O SRI RAMANNA,AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,PRESENTLY WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINNER(ELEC), O/O THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVEENGINEER (ELEC),BESCOM, N4 SUB DIVISIONHEGGANAHALLI, O & M, PEENYA 2ND STAGE,BANGLAORE,AND R/A NO.23 2ND MAIN 2ND CROSSSHIVANAGARA, RAJAJINAGARA,BANGALORE 560 010.

2. SRI N SUBBA RAO,S/O LATE M S NARAYANAPPA,AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,PRESENTLY WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINNER(ELEC) O/O ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(ELEC) NO.2 SUB-DIVISION, BESCOM

2

HOUSING BOARD COLONY, VIJAYANAGAR,BANGALORE,AND R/A NO.8, 5TH MAIN, CHAMUNDESHWARILAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURAM.BANGALORE 560 097.

3. SRI M MAHESH,S/O LATE M MAHADEVA RAO,AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,PRESENTLY WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINNER(ELEC) O/O EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC)BESCOM, M.T.DIVISION, RAJAJINAGAR,BANGALORE 560010,AND R/A NO.89, R.V.ROADBASAVANGUDI, BANGALORE 560004.

4. SRI N DORESWAMY GOWDA,S/O LATE NANJEGOWDAAGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,PRESENTLY WORKING AS SENIOR ASSISTANTO/O EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC)BESCOM, ADDITIONAL CENTRAL DIVISION,HEBBAL (UAS CAMPUS) HEBBAL, BANGALORE 24AND R/A NO.23, 1ST "D" MAIN ROADSHIVANAGAR,BANGALORE 560010.

5. SMT G S BABY SAROJA,W/O SRI M R SHIVAKUMARAGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,PRESENTLY WORKING AS TYPISTO/O ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC)NO.4 SUB-DIVISION, 2ND STAGE, PEENYABANGALORE & R/A NO.972/B, 4TH "E" BLOCK64TH CROSS, 10TH MAIN, RAJAJINAGARBANGALORE 560010

6. SRI SIDDAPPA,S/O LATE JAGAPPA,AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,RETIRED TYPISTO/O EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC)BESCOM, NORTH DIVISION,

3

RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE,& R/A NO.9, 1ST A CROSS, 3RD MAINSOMESHWARA NAGARA, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,BANGALORE. ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI N DEVARAJ, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD(BOARD CONSTITUTED UNDER ELECTRICITY ACT),REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMANCAUVERY BHAVAN,BANGALORE 560001.

2. KARNATAKA VIDYUTH PRASARANA NIGAMA LIMITEDREPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR(ADMINISTRATIVE AND HUMAN RESOURCESDEVELOPMENT)K.P.T.C.L., CAUVERY BHAVANBANGALORE 560001. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI: GURUDEV I GACHCHINMATH ADVOCATE FOR R1TO R3)

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER

ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,

PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT.12.12.08

MARKED AT ANN-E, ISSUED BY THE R2, MANAGING

DIRECTOR, ONLY IN SO FAR IT RELATES TO DENIAL OF

INCREMENTAL ARREARS FROM THE DATE OF ITS

ENTITLEMENTS TO TILL THE DATE OF THE IMPUGNED

ORDER & WITH A FURTHER DIRECTION TO THE

RESPONDENTS TO PAY INCREMENTS & ARREARS

TOGETHER WITH 18% OF INTEREST FOR THE DELAYED

PAYMENT.

IN WRIT PETITION NO: 8624/2007 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

ANANDAIAH L T,

4

S/O L S THAMMAIAH,AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,WORKING AS SENIOR ASSISTANT,BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY(ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER), TUMKURR/A MARUTHINAGAR, 7TH A LINK.TUMKUR. ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI P H VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. MANAGING DIRECTOR BESCOMK.R.CIRCLE,BANGALORE.

2. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEERBESCOM, TUMKUR CIRCLE,TUMKUR

3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEERBESCOM, TUMKUR DIVISION,TUMKUR. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI: GURUDEV I GACHCHINMATH ADVOCATE FOR R1TO R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET

ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT DT. 2.1.2007 VIDE ANNEX.D.

HOLDING THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND

WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ETC.

IN WRIT PETITION NO: 8625/2007 (S-RES):

BETWEEN:

CHANDRAIAH T S,S/O SHIVANNAAGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,WORKING AS SENIOR ASSISTANT,BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY(ASSISTANT MANAGING DIRECTOR), TUMKUR

5

R/A RENUKA NILAYA, MUNICIPAL LAYOUT,TUMKUR. ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI: P H VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. MANAGING DIRECTOR BESCOMK.R.CIRCLE,BANGALORE.

2. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEERBESCOM, TUMKUR CIRCLE,TUMKUR

3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEERBESCOM, TUMKUR DIVISION,TUMKUR. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI : GURUDEV I GACHCHINMATH, ADVOCATE)


& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET

ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT DT.13.2.2006 VIDE

ANNEXURE-D HOLDING THE SAME IS ILLEGAL,

ARBITRARY AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION.

IN WRIT PETITION NO: 6638/2008 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI MOHAN KALLURAYA NS/O.GOPAL KRISHNA KALLURAYA NAGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,EXECUTION ENGINEER ELECTRICALIA AND QC KPTCL, 412,4TH FLOOR,KAVERI BHAVAN,KPTCL,BANGALORE.

2. SRI L RAVI,S/O.LATE.N.LEPAKSHI,AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,R/AT.NO.68, 4TH MAIN,DOMLUR 2ND STAGE,

6

BANGALORE-560 071.

3. SRI S HARISH,S/O.LATE.H.SESHAGIRI RAO,AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,R/AT.NO.16 & 17/11/A 2ND CROSS,SHAKTHIGANAPATHI NAGAR,BASAVESHWARA NAGAR,BANGALORE-560 079.

4. SRI S M PARAMESHWARAIAHS/O.LATE.S.L.MUDDABASAVAIAH,AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,RETIRED ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,R/AT.NO.67,3RD MAIN ROAD,M.L.A.LAYOUT, R.T.NAGAR,BANGALORE-560 032.

5. SMT N SUGUNA,W/O.C.V.SRINIVASAN,AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,DGM (O)BRG BESCOM,R.P.BUILDING,N.T.ROAD,BANGALORE.1

6. SRI R SHANKAR NARAYAN,S/O.LATE.P.RANGAIAH,AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,R/AT.NO.13,1ST'N'BLOCK,RAJAJINAGAR,BANGALORE.10

7. SRI H NAGARAJS/O.DR.H.P.ACHAR,AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER ELECTRICALCHIEF GENERAL MANAGER ELECTRICAL,CFC BUILDING, N.T.ROAD,BESCOM,BANGALORE.

8. SRI U NANJUNDAPPAS/O.N.UTHANALLAPPA,AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) MMI,

7

PROCUREMENT SECTION,CORPORATE OFFICE, BESCOM,KR CIRCLE, BANGALORE.

9. SRI H PURUSHOTHAMMAS/O.LATE.C.HANUMANTHAPPA,AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,NO.124, 4TH MAIN ROAD,GANGANAGAR,BANGALORE-560 032.

10. SRI V GOVIND RAJUS/O.S.A.VENKATARAMA RAJU,AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,NO.648, 6TH MAIN ROAD,ISRO LAYOUT,BANGALORE-560 078.

11. SRI AZAZ AHAMEDS/O.LATE.M.UMER ISMAIL SAITAGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,R/AT.A-8, KPTCL QUARTERS,7TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS,HAL 2ND STAGE,INDIRANAGAR,BANGALORE- 560 008.

12. SRI B N SATISH CHANDRAS/O.LATE.S.B.NARASIMHAIAH,AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,R/AT.NO.488,33RD 'A' CROSS,9TH MAIN,4TH BLOCK,JAYANAGAR,BANGALORE-560 011.

13. SRI T C ANAND KUMARS/O.B.CHANNAPPA,AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,CEE (T & P) KAVERI BHAVAN,KPTCL, BANGALORE.

14. SRI D M NARAYANA SWAMYS/O.LATE.MUNIVENKALAPPA,AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,R/AT.NO.11,"SREE SOWRABHA"II MAIN ROAD, DODDABOMASANDRA,

8

VIDYARANYAPURA,BANGALORE-560 097.

15. SRI S M JAYAPRAKASHS/O.LATE.T.S.MUNIYAPPA,AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,CORPORATE OFFICE,BESCOM, K.R.CIRCLE,BANGALORE.

16. SRI C R VIJAYDEVS/O.LATE.C.R.RAJARAM,AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,CORPORATE OFFICE,BESCOM,CRESCENT ROAD,MADHAVANAGAR,BANGALORE.

17. SRI K B MANJUNATHS/O.S.BASAPPA,AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (KPTCL)R/AT."BASAVA NILAYA"1ST CROSS,'A'BLOCK, GANDHINAGAR,SHIMOGA-572 201.

18. SRI N SEETHARAMS/O.H.S.NARAYANA RAO,AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,746/57,12TH CROSS,(OLD 3RD CROSS) 1ST MAIN,VYALIKAVAL EXTN.BANGALORE-560 03. ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI A MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. M/S KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSIONCORPORATIONKAVERI BHAVAN,BANGALORE.REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

2. GENERAL MANAGER(ADM AND HR)M/S.KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION

9

CORPORATION,BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI : B C PRABHAKAR FOR M/S BHOOPALAM LAWASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES)


& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO

QUASH THE IMPUNGED APPENDIX I TO ANN-A, I.E,

BOARD ORDER OF THE R1, IN DT.9.7.77 AND ALSO

FURTHER QUASH THE CLARIFICATION FOUND AT ANN-B,

ISSUED BY THE R1, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY DT.7.4.78

TO THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ELECL) K.E.B BANGALORE

AND FURTHER ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY

OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRECTIN DIRECTING

THE RESPONDENT BOARD TO REFIX THE SALARY OF THE

PETITIONERS BY STARTING THE SALARIES OF THE

PETITIONERS AT THE MINIMUM OF THEIR PAY SCALE

FROM THE DATE OF ENTRY IN TO SERVICE BY

SANCTIONING TO THE PETITONERS THE INCREMENT

THAT WAS DEPRIVED OF DURING THE PROBATIONARY

PERIOD, AND TO GRANT ALL OTHER FURTHER

CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF EMANATING FROM THE

RESTORING THE SAID INCREMENT, AND GIVE THE SAME

BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONERS AS WERE GIVEN TO

MR.PRASANNA KUMAR VIDE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM

DT.6.3.08, FOUND AT ANN-J ALLOW THIS WP WITH COSTS

AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS.


BETWEEN:

1. SMT LAKSHMI R RW/O DR S RAGHUAGED ABOUT 51 YEARSWORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEERELECTRICAL, BESCOM R/AT OLD NO 49, NEW O8, 7TH CROSS, S P EXTENSION, MALLESAWRAMBANGALORE 560 003.

10

2. SMT P SAROJAMMAW/O R ELLANAGED ABOUT 56 YEARSWORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEERELECTRICAL, BESCOM, R/AT NO 2461, 4MAIN, 2 A CROSS, HAL 3 STAGE, KONENAAGRAHARA, BANGALORE 560 017.

3. SRI H KOTRPAPAS/O H CHANDRAPPAAGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICALO & M DIVISION, GESCOM, YADGIR 585202GULBARGA DISTRICT.

4. SRI V RAMANJANAPPAS/O LATE G VEMANNARETD EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO 74/1I CROSS, 5 MAIN, 5 BLOCK, BSK 3 STAGE3 PHASE, BANGALORE 560 085

5. SRI B M CHANDRASHEKARAIAHS/O LATE C MUNIYAPPAAGED ABOUT 53 YEARSWORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEERELECTRICAL, MAJOR WORKS DIVISIONHASSAN.

6. SRI T PARTHASARATHYS/O LATE THIMMEGOWDAAGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,WORKING AS EXECUTIE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL,CHAMUNDESHWARIELECTRIC SUPPLY CO AND QC O AND M CIRCLEHASSAN

7. SRI B SHEKARS/O R C ARTHURAGED ABOUT 53 YEARSWORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEERELECTRICAL, CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICSUPPLY CO, HOLE NARASIPURA

11

8. SRI R RAMESHS/O Y S RAMASWAMYAGED ABOUT 56 YEARSEXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICALRT DIVISION, KPTCLMRS COMPOUND, SHIMOGA

9. SRI C N SUDHINDRAS/O C N NAGARAJAGED ABOUT 54 YEARSWORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEERELECTRICAL, ON DEPUTATION TOIISC, BANGALORE 560 012

10. SRI K A BOPPAIAHS/O K P APPAIAH,AGED ABOUT 55 YEARSEXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICALTA AND C, KPTCLMANGALORE.

11. SRI K BOMMALINGAIAHS/O KAREBOMMANAYAKAAGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,RETIRED SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, KPTCLBANNI NAGAR, SIRA TOWN SIRATUMKUR

12. SRI B K KUSHALAPPAS/O B B KARUMBAIAHAGED ABOUT 57 YEARSEXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KODUGU MAJORWORKS, KPTCL, N R MOHALAMYSORE.

13. SRI T S ANANDS/O T B SOMAIAHAGED ABOUT 63 YEARSRETD ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEERNO 18/58, SUDARSHAN EXTENSIONMADIKERI, KODAGU

14. SMT N SAROJA BAIW/O C D VELU,

12

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARSEXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)O/O THE CEE T AND P, KPTCLKAVERI BHAVAN, BANGALORE

15. SMT H B GAYATHRIW/O S MANOHARAGED ABOUT 50 YEARSEXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)REGULATORY AFFAIRS, KPTCLKAVERI BHAVAN, BANGALORE 9

16. SRI M HIDAYATHULLAS/O M ABDUL MAJEEDAGED ABOUT 56 YEARSEXECUTIVE ENGINEER ( ELECTRICAL)DOOR NO 1, WARD NO 32, OPPOSITELLC COLONY, NEW TRUNK ROADCANTONMENT, BELLARY 583 103

17. SRI S MANOHARS/O SUBRAYAAGED ABOUT 54 YEARSEXECUTIVE ENGINEERAPR, KPTCL, KAVERI BHAVANBANGALORE 560 09

18. SRI B P SRINATHS/O SRI B R PUTTAVEERACHARAGED ABOUT 51 YEARSWORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEERELECTRICAL, RT DIVISION, KPTCLBELLARY

19. SRI B HONNEGOWDAS/O CHANNEGOWDAAGED ABOUT 51 YEARSEXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL )MW DIVISION, HOLENARASIPURABELLARY.

20. SRI B ANANTH KRISHNAS/O B N V SUBBAIAHAGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

13

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)TRANSMISSION ZONAL OFFICE, PRASARANABHAVAN, KPTCL, FTS COMPOUNDNR MOHALLA, MYSORE 560010

21. SRI S K YAJIS/O LATE K M YAJIAGED ABOUT 56 YEARSEXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)TRANSMISSION CIRCLE OFFICEKPTCL, PRASARANA BHAVAN FTS COMPOUNDNR MOHALLA,MYSORE 560010

22. SRI T PRABHAKARS/O LATE T C THIMMAIAHAGED ABOUT 58 YEARSASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICALNR MOHALLA, SUB DIVISION 2CESC, MYSORE 560010

23. SR K C NITHYANANDAS/O LATE K S CHANDRASHEKARAGED ABOUT 49 YEARSASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEERELECTRICAL, 220 KV STATIONKADAKOLAMYSORE

24. SRI N NARASIMHEGOWDAS/O K NARAYANAPPAAGED ABOUT 49 YEARSEXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)CITY WORKS CIRCLE, CESCKUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSORE

25. SRI B V PRABHUS/O N B VEERABASAPPAAGED ABOUT 57 YEARSEXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)TLSS DIVISION, HOOTAGALLIKPTCL, MYSORE

14

26. SRI N SURESHS/O LATE H N NAGESH RAOAGED ABOUT 51 YEARSEXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICALCORPORATE OFFICE, MESCOMA B SHETTY CIRCLE, MANGALORE 575001

27. SRI N ANANTH SWAMYS/O N RAMAMURTHYAGED ABOUT 51 YEARSCHAMARAJNAGAR, EXECUTIVE WORKSMAJOR WORKS DIVISION, KPTCLCHAMARAJANAGAR, N R MOHALLAMYSORE 570007.

28. SRI K L BALAKRISHNAS/O LATE D LAKSHMEGOWDAAGED ABOUT 52 YEARSEXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)MANDYA MAJOR WORKS, KPTCLNR MOHALLA, MYSORE

29. SRI GOPALS/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARAIAHAGED ABOUT 52 YEARSEXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)(O & O CEE TRN ZONEHASSAN.

30. SRI SATHYANARAYANA H GS/O LATE GUNDAPPAAGED ABOUT 53 YEARSEXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)CESC, HASSAN.

31. SRI SATISH CHANDRA HRS/O RAMA CHADNRA HAAGED ABOUT 51 YEARSEXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)TL AND SSHOLENARASIPURA, HASSAN.

32. SRI A VADIRAJA RAOS/O LATE M R ANANTHARAM

15

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARSEXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICALRT DIVISION, HASSAN

33. SRI CHIKKALINGAIAHS/O LINGE GOWDAAGED ABOUT 58 YEARSRETD EXECUTIVE ENGINEERR/AT NO 4406/D, JAYA NIVASABANDIGOWDA LAYOUT, MANDYA 571401

34. SRI SRIKATAIAHS/O JAVANE GOWDAAGED ABOUT 65 YEARSRETD ASSISTANT ENGINEER, NO 18, GROUNDFLOOR, 3 CROSS, VVR STREETGANAPATHIPURA, KONANAKUNTEBANGALORE 62

35. SRI NUTAKKI BHASKARA RAOS/O N CHANDRASHEKARA RAOAGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,RETD ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,R/AT NO 43/1, 3 CROSS, GR LAYOUT,NEAR RAJIV GANDHIDENTAL COLLEGE, CHOLANAGAR, R T NAGARBANGALORE 560 032.

36. SRI A VENKANNA BHATS/O A HANUMANTHA BHATAGED ABOUT 54 YEARSWORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEERELE, MAJOR WORKS DIVISIONKPTCL, BELLARY.

37. SRI PAPANNAS/O K KARIGOWDAAGED ABOUT 65 YEARSRETD ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEERKPTCL, R/AT NO 292, 9 CROSSCHAMUNDESHWARINAGAR, MANDYA

38. SRI H HOMBALE GOWDAS/O SRI HOMBALE GOWAD

16

RETD ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEERAGED ABOUT 66 YEARSKPTCL, R/AT NO 389, 7 CROSS,CHAMUNDESHWARINAGAR, MANDYA

39. SRI D NAGARAJAS/O Y DAMBALAPPAAGED ABOUT 49 YEARSWORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELEO & M DIVISION, CHANDAPURA, R/AT C-5KPTCL, OFFICERS COLONY, 5 CROSS11 MAIN, HAL II STAGE, INDIRANAGAR

40. SRI V PRABHAKARS/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPAAGED ABOUT 53 YEARSWORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEERMAJOR WORKS DIVISIONKPTCL, RAICHUR. ... PETITIONERS


AND

1. M/S KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSIONCORPORATIONKAVERI BHAVANBANGALOREREP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

2. GENERAL MANAGER(ADM AND HR)M/S KARNATAKA POWERTRANSMISSION CORPORATIONBANGALORE. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI HARIKRISHNA HOLLA ADVOCATE FOR R1,SRI BC PRABHAKAR FOR M/S BHOOPALAM LAWASSOCIATES FOR R2)



QUASH THE IMPUNGED APPENDIX I TO ANN-A, IE, BOARD

ORDER OF THE R1, DT.9.7.77 AND ALSO FURTHER

17

QUASH THE CLARIFICATION FOUND AT ANN-B, ISSUED

BY THE R1, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY DT.7.4.78 TO THE

CHIEF ENGINEER (ELECL) K.E.B, BANGALORE AND

FURTHER ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER

APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRETION DIRECTING THE

RESPONDENT BOARD TO REFIX THE SALARY OF THE

PETITIONERS BY STARTING THE SALARIES OF THE

PETITIONERS AT THE MINIMUM OF THEIR PAY SCALE

FORM THE DATE OF ENTRY INTO SERVICE BY

SANCTIONING TO THE PETITIONES THE INCREMENT THAT

WAS DEPRIVED OF DURING THE PBOBATIONARY PERIOD,

AND TO GRANT ALL OTHER FURTHER CONSEQUENTIAL

RELIEF EMANATING FROM THE RESTORING THE SAID

INCREMENT, AND GIVE THE SAME BENEFITS TO THE

PETITIONERS AS WERE GIVEN TO MR.PRASANNA KUMAR

VIDE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DT.6.3.08, FOUND AT

ANN-J ALLOW THIS WP WITH COSTS AND GRANT SUCH

OTHER RELIEFS.


BETWEEN:

1. SRI K T KARISIDDAIAH,S/O SRI THOTAIAHAGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)CORPORATE OFFICE, MESCOMMANGALORE.

2. SOMASHEKARAPPA,S/O T THIRTHAPPAEXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,MESCOM TRAINING INSTITUTEKAVOOR, MANGALORE.

3. M JAYASURYA,S/O M LINGAPPAIAHAGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)MECOM, O & M DIVISION,

18

UDUPI.

4. M GURURAJ SUVARNA,S/O LATE M SUBBAAGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) (O),MESCOM, ZONAL OFFICE,MANGALORE.

5. B S SRIKANTA MURTHY,S/O S SUBBARAYAEXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) (O)AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,MESCOM, O & M DIVISION,PUTTUR.

6. A RAJACHARI,S/O A ESHWARAPPAAGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE),220 KV TL & SS DIVISION,KEMAR, KARKALA, UDUPI

7. S CHANDRASHEKAR,S/O H S SHESHADRIAGED ABOUT 54 EYARS,EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)33, K.V.STATIONS, CIRCLE OFFICE,MESCOM, SHIMOGA.

8. T RAMACHANDRA,S/O R A THIRTHAAGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)TL & SS STATION, KPTCL,TALAGUPPA.

9. K M KRISHNA MURTHY,S/O K MORESHWARAGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,(RETIRED EX. ENGINEER, KPTCL)15/2, "NIHARIKA",N.R.PURA ROAD, NEAR M.R.S

19

VIDYANAGARA, SHIMOGA.

10. S R SRINATH ,S/O S V RAGHOTHAMA RAOAGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,TL & SS DIVISION, SHIMOGA KPTCL,2ND FLOOR, SHARTHAMANSION,GANDHINAGAR MAIN ROAD,SHIMOGA-577 201

11. K M SURESH,S/O K N MANJUNATHA RAOAGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)M.W.DIVISION, KPTCL,CHICKMAGALUR DIST.,SHIMOGA.

12. M RAMAMURTHY.S/O M NARASIMHACHARAGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC)MESCOM, KADUR DIVISION,KADUR, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT.

13. A SHANKARA NARAYANA,S/O LATE K VENKATARAMANA BHATAGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,RTD., EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC)SRI.RAGHAVENDRA NILAYA, NARAYANAPPALAYOUT, BYEPASS ROAD, VIDYANAGARA,SHIMOGA-577 203

14. J S SHIVASHANKARA BHATTAS/O J.SATHYANARAYAN BHATTAAGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (O),O & M CIRCLE MESCOM,BALRAJ URS ROAD,SHIMOGA

15. ETI NEELAPPA,

20

S/O ETI BEERAPPAAGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,RETD. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEERH.NO.47, 36TH CROSS,LINGARAJANAGAR SOUTH,HUBLI-580 031.

16. H HOMBALE GOWDA,S/O LATE CHANNE GOWDA,AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,RETD. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEERINDIRA NILAYA, D.NO.KL 254,2ND CROSS, MARIGOWDA LAYOUT,MANDYA CITY. ... PETITIONERS


AND:

1. M/S KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSIONCORPORATIONKAVERI BHAVAN,BANGALOREREP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

2. GENERAL MAANGER (ADM & HR)M/S KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSIONCORPORATION, BANGALORE ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B C PRABHAKAR FOR M/S BHOOPALAM LAWASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES)



QUASH THE IMPUGNED APPENDIX I TO ANNEXURE-A i.e.,

BOARD OF ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN NO.

KEB/BBO.7/76-77 DT. 9.7.77 AND ALSO FURTHER QUASH

THE CLARIFICATION FOUND AT ANNEXURE-B ISSUED BY

RESPONDENT NO.1 THROUGH ITS SECRETARY IN NO.

BOP.18/77-78 DT. 7.4.78 TO THE CHIEF ENGINEER

(ELECL). K.E.B., BANGALORE AND FURTHER ISSUE WRIT

OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER OR

DIRECTION DIRECTING THE REPONDENT BOARD TO

21

REFIX THE SALARY OF THE PETITIONERS BY STARTING

THE SALARIES OF THE PETITIONERS AT THE MINIMUM

OF THEIR PAY SCALE FROM THE DATE OF ENTRY INTO

SERVICE BY SANCTIONING TO THE PETTIIONERS THE

INCREMENT THAT WAS DEPRIED OF DURING THE

PROBATIONARY PERIOD, AND GRANT ALL OTHER

CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF EMANTING FROM THE

RESTORING THE SAID INCREMENT, AND GIVE THE SAME

BENEFITS TO THE PETITONERS AS WERE GIVEN TO

MR.PRASANNA KUMAR VIDE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DT.

6.3.2008 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-J.

IN WRIT PETITION NO 8834/2008 (S-RES):

BETWEEN

1. SRI B KARIYAPPA,S/O SRI BUTHANNAAGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,RETD ASST EXECUTIVEENGINEER ELE, TANK ROAD, MARUTHINAGARTUMKUR 572 102.

2. SRI K T MUDALAGIRIYAPPAS/O LATE SRI CHIKKATHIMMAIAHAGED ABOUT 61 YEARSRETD EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (NON CADRE)VENU, 4 MAIN, ASHOKNAGARTUMKUR 572103.

3. SRI B KARIYAPPAS/O SRI BHEEMANNAAGED ABOUT 63 YEARSRETD ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEERNO 14, MATHRUDARSHINI, 2 CROSSASHOKNAGAR, TUMKUR 572103.

4. SRI H S VEERAPPA,S/O SRI SANNAPPA,AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,RETD ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEERNAMMANE, II BLOCK, 4 MAIN, I CROSS

22

KUVEMPUNAGAR, TUMKUR

5. SRI H G LAKSHMANAPPA,S/O SRI GIRIYAPPA,AGED ABOUT 65 YERASRETD ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ( BESCOM)MATHRUSHREE, BEHIND GIRLS HOSTELVEDAVATHI NAGAR, HIRIYURCHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

6. SRI G HANUMANTHARAYA,S/O SRI GUJJARAPPA,AGED ABOUT 62 YEARSRETD ASST EXECUTIVE (ELE)BESCOM SRINIVASA NILAYANEAR TELEPHONE TOWER T R NAGARCHALLAKERE 577522, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

7. SRI A N KANTHA REDDYS/O SRI A NARAYANA REDDYAGED ABOTU 60 Y AERSRETD ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEERBESCOM/CTA, JCR EXTENSION5 CROSS EASTCHITRADURGA.

8. SRI G NARAYANAS/O SRI V K GOPALANAGED ABOUT 56 YEARSEXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC)CO & M CIRCLE, BESCOM, KOLARNO 60, SWARA, I FLOOR, BEHINDPRANAM RESIDENCY 4 CROSS, SECTOR BAMRUTHNAGAR, SAHAKARNAGAR POSTBANGALORE 560 092

9. SMT CLETA FERNANDES PRABHUD/O LATE FERNANDES PRABHUAGED ABOUT 51 YEARSEXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC)MARYLYN, BIJEY, MANGALORE 575004

10. SRI K L SATHYANARAYANA RAOS/O SRI K G LAKSHMANA RAO

23

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARSRETD ASSISTANT ENGINEERDOOR NO 12-65/3C, JAYANAGARTHADAMBAIL, SURATHKALMANGALORE 575014.

11. SRI SADASHIVA SHARMAS/O SRI SHANKARANARAYANA BHATAGED ABOUT 60 YEARSRETD EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC)ANUGRAHAVIDYANAGAR, NEHRUNAGAR POSTPUTTUR 574203, D.K.

12. SRI T ASWATH REDDYS/O LATE SRI MUNISWAMYAGED ABOUT 54 YEARSEXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC)NO 44, BRINDAVANA 2 CROSSSRIRAMPURABANGALORE 21 ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI : A MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. M/S KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSIONCORPORATIONCAUVERY BHAVANBANGALOREREP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

2. GENERAL MANAGER(ADM AND HR)M/S KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSIONCORPORATION,BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B C PRABHAKAR ADVOCATE FRO BHOOPALAMLAW ASSOCIATES)



QUASH THE IMPUGNED APPENDIX I TO ANN-A, I.E,

BOARD ORDER OF THE R1, IN DT.9.7.77 AND ALSO

24

FURTHER QUASH THE CLARIFICATION FOUND AT ANN-B,

ISSUED BY THE R1, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY IN

NO.BOP.18/77-78 DT.7.4.78 TO THE CHIEF ENGINEER

(ELECL.) K.E.B BANGALORE AND FURTHER ISSUE WRIT

OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER OR

DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT BOARD TO

REFIX THE SALARY OF THE PETITIONERS BY STARTING

THE SALARIES OF THE PETITIONERS AT THE MINIMUM

OF THEIR PAY SCALE FROM THE DATE OF ENTRY IN TO

SERVICE BY SANCTIONING TO THE PETITIONERS THE

INCREMENT THAT WAS DEPRIVED OF DURING THE

PROBATIONARY PERIOD, AND TO GRANT ALL OTHER

FURTHER CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF EMANATING FROM

THE RESTORING THE SAID INCREMENT, AND GIVE THE

SAME BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONES AS WERE GIVEN TO

MR.PRASANNA KUMAR VIDE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM

DT.6.3.08, FOUND AT ANN-J ALLOW THIS WP WITH COSTS

AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS.


BETWEEN:

1. SRI T S NARAYANS/O SRI SHESHANNA GOWDAAGED ABOUT 66 YEARSFORMERLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVEENGINEER, KPRCL, AND R/AT NO 722, 2ND BCROSS, KORAMANGALA 8TH BLOCKBANGALORE-95.

2. SRI DESAI MURALI ,SON OF D D RAOAGED ABOUT 59 YEARSFORMERLY WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(ELCL)HESCOM, ZONAL OFFICE, HUBLI ANDR/AT NO 122, 6TH CROSS, GOVINAYAKANAHALIKUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, BANGALORE-78.

3. SRI H P SHIVANNA,S/OF SRI PUTTANANJAPPA,AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

25

FORMERLY WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(ELCL)BESCOM, AND R/AT NO 475, I FLOORKHB COLONY, V BLOCK, KORAMANGALABANGALORE-95.

4. SRI R SUDARSHANA SINGH,SON OF R KRISHNA SINGH,AGED ABOUT 59 YEARSFORMERLY WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(ELECL)KPTCL R/AT NO 100, 5TH CROSSMUNESHWARA LAYOUT, NEAR SEA COLLEGEAYYAPPA NAGAR,DEVASANDRA MAIN ROAD,BANGALORE – 36.

5. SRI K RAVI KUMARS/OF SRI K NARAYANA MURTHYAGED ABOUT 59 YEARSFORMERLY WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(ELECL) KPTCL R/AT NO 4 AND 5PANNAGA, SIDDIVINAYAKA LAYOUTBANGALORE-85.

6. SRI H A BASAVARAJUS/O SRI HALEGOWDAAGED ABOUT 62 YEARSFORMERLY WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEERKPTCL R/AT NO 3, I MAIN, BASAWESHWARALAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR,BANGALORE-40. ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI M SUBRAMANYA BHAT ADVOCATE FORM/S SUBBARAO AND COMPANY, ADVOCATES)

AND:

1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSIONCORPORATION LIMITEDREP BY THE CHAIRMANAND MANAGING DIRECTORCAUVERY BHAVANBANGALORE-01.

2. THE GENERAL MANAGERHR AND ADM, KPTCL

26

KAVERI BHAVANBANGALORE-9. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI: B.C PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR BHOOPALAMLAW ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES)



DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO FIX THE BASIC PAY OF

THE PETIITONERS AT RS.720/- FROM THE DATE OF

THEIR INITIAL APPOINTMENT, IN TERMS OF THE

DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN

WP.NO.12230/1987 DT.14.10.1998, WA.NO.5607/1998

DT.10.12.1999 AND CA.NO.7763/01, DT.5.12.07, BY THE

HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, (ANNS-D, E AND F

RESPECTIVELY).


BETWEEN:

1. SRI JINENDRAPPA,S/O SRI C G DEVARAJAPPAAGED ABOUT 54 YEARSWORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(ELCL)KPTCL, AND R/AT NO.488/27I FLOOR, 13TH CROSS, WILSON GARDENBANGALORE-27.

2. SRI MOHAMMED IMTIYAZUDDINS/O SRI. MOHAMMED SIRAJUDDINAGED ABOUT 59 YEARSFORMERLY WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEERBESCOM, AND R/AT NO.142, 4TH CROSSJ.H.B.C.S. LAYOUT, J.P.NAGARBANGALORE-78.

3. SRI RAM SETTY,S/O SRI KRISHNA SETTYAGED ABOUT 62 YEARSFORMERLY WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEERKPTCL, AND R/AT NO.13, 'SUKRIT'NEAR VIKAS SCHOOL, 4THMAIN

27

4TH BLOCK, B.S.K. 3RD STAGEBANGALORE-85.

4. SRI G C HANUMANTHAPPA,S/O SRI G CHANNAPPAAGED ABOUT 68 YEARSFORMERLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVEENGINEER (ELCL), KEB, AND R/ATCHANNAKESHAVA NILAYASAVALANG ROADSHIMOGA-577 203.

5. SRI ADINARAYANA REDDY,S/O SRI K M NARAYANA REDYAGED ABOUT 61 YEARSFORMERLY WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEERKPTCL, AND R/AT NO.228NANJUNDESHWARA NILAYA, 40 FEET LINK ROADVIDYAAGAR, NEAR PUTTANJANEYA TEMPLETUMKUR-572 103.

6. SRI K G MAHABALESHWARA,S/O SRI A GIRIYAPPAAGED ABOUT 61 YEASFORMERLY WORING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEERKPTCL, AND R/AT NO.54, SRI.MANJUANTHANILAYA, NEAR CHETANA SCHOOL2ND STAGE, 2ND CROSS, VINOBA NAGARSHIMOGA-577 201. ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI M SUBRAMANYA BHAT ADVOCATE FOR M/SSUBBARAO AND COMPANY, ADVOCATES)

AND:

1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSIONCORPORATION LIMITEDREP. BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTORCAUVERY BHAVANBANGALORE-1

2. THE GENERAL MANAGER(HR AND ADM.), KPTCL

28

KAVERI BHAVANBANGALORE-9. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI HARIKRISHNA S HOLLA, ADVOCATE)



DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO FIX THE BASIC PAY OF

THE PETITIONERS AT RS 720/- FROM THE DATE OF

THEIR INITIAL APPOINTMENT, IN TERMS OF THE

DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT

PETITION NO. 12230/1987 DT. 14.10.1998; WA NO.

5607/1998 DT. 10.12.1999 AND CA NO. 7763/2001 DT.

5.12.2007 BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT,

ANNEXURES D, E AND F RESPECTIVELY.

IN WRIT PETITION NO: 11798/2008 (S-RES) :

BETWEEN:

S NARAYANA REDDY,S/O LATE SIDDAPPAAGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,R/AT NO 541,20TH MAIN, 22ND CROSS, JUDICIAL LAYOUTGKVK POST, BANGALORE-56. ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI R L PATIL ADVOCATE FOR M/S PATIL AND PATIL,ADVOCATES)

AND:

1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSIONCORPORATION LTD., CAUVERY BHAWANBANGALORE,R/BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

2. GENERAL MANAGER (HR & ADM)KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSIONCORPORATION LTD., CAUVERY BHAWANBANGALORE.

29

3. MANAGING DIRECTORBESCOM, KR CIRCLEBANGALORE. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B C PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR M/SBHOOPALAM LAW ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES FOR R2 &R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTTHE RESPONDENT TO FIX PROPER MINIMUM OF TIMESCALE PAY THAT IS 720-30-780-50[1030-60-1330-75-1750]WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATE OF HIS APPOINTMENTWITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.

IN WRIT PETITION NOS. 40258 - 40260/2010 (S-RES):

BETWEEN:

1. SRI P N HANUMANTHAIAH,S/O SRI NANJAPPAAGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,PRESENTLY WORKING ASASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELEC.), O/O THEASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE), NO.2SUB-DIVISION, BESCOM, HOUSING BOARD COLONYVIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-40 & R/A NO.39,T S GOVINDAPPA ROAD, T SEETHARAMAIAH LAYOUT,NEAR CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE,YESHWANTHAPUR,BANGALORE – 560 054.

2. SRI. R N SRINIVASAN,S/O LATE NARAYANACHARIAGED ABOUT 53 YEARSPRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVEENGINEER(ELEC), NO.2 SUB-DIVISION, BESCOMHOUSING BOARD COLONY, VIJAYANAGAR,BANGALORE – 40.& R/A NO.7, 2ND MAIN ROAD, GANDHIGRAMAOPP TO MALLESHWARAM, RAILWAY STATION,BANGALORE – 560 021.

3. SMT. PRABHAVATHI,

30

W/O SRI. H LOKAPPAAGED ABOUT 59 YEASPRESENTLY WORKING AS TYPISTO/O THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)BESCOM STORE, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE& R/AT NO. 16, 12TH MAIN ROAD, SHIVANAGAR,BANGALORE-10. ... PETITIONERS


AND:

1. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD(BOARD CONSTITUTED UNDER ELECTRICITY ACTREP. BY ITS CHAIRMANCAUVERY BHAVANBANGALORE-560001.

2. KARNATAKA VIDYUTH PRASARANA NIGAMA LIMITEDREP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR(ADMINISTRATIVE AND HUMAN RESOURCESDEVELOPMENT), K P T C L, CAUVERY BHAVANBANGALORE-560001. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI P S DINESH KUMAR ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)



PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER,

BANGALORE DATED 12.12.08 MARKED AT ANNEX-E

ISSUED BY THE R2 MANAGING DIRECTOR ONLY IN SO

FAR IT RELATES TO DENIAL OF INCREMENTAL ARREARS

FROM THE DATE OF ITS ENTITLEMENTS TO TILL THE

DATE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND WITH A FURTHER

DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY INCREMENTS

AND ARREARS, TOGETHER WITH 18% OF INTEREST FOR

THE DELAYED PAYMENT.

31

IN WRIT PETITION NOS. 17792-96/2010 (S-RES):

BETWEEN

1. SMT H LATHA,D/O SRI K B SHIVALINGAIAHAGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,PRESENTLY WORKING ASASSISTANT ACCOUNTS OFFICERO/O THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(ELEC), NO.7,SUB-DIVISION, J C NAGAR,BESCOM, BANGALORE-86, & R/A "VISHNU PRIYA"NO.48/A, 9TH MAIN,4TH BLOCK, R NAGARBANGALORE – 560 010.

2. SRI PRABHAKAR DEVANA DIXIT,S/O LATE SUBRAMANYADIXIT, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASST EXECUTIVEENGINEER (ELEC)O/O THE ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC),NO.2, SUB-DIVISION, BESCOM, HOUSING BOARDCOLONY, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE, & R/A NO2, MARUTHI NAGAR, BEHIND KABBALAMMA TEMPLEBYADARAHALLI, BANGALORE – 560 091.

3. SRI K L SEETHARAMAIAH,S/O SRI K S LAKSHMAN RAOAGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,PRESENTLY WORKING AS OVERSEER,O/O THE ASST EXECUTIVEENGINEER (ELEC), BESCOM, C3 SUB-DIVISIONMALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560010 & R/A NO.5700, 15TH MAIN, BHARAT NAGAR, 2ND STAGEBANGALORE 560 091.

4. SRI N GOVINDAIAH,S/O LATE NARAYANAPPAAGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,PRESENTLY WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (ELEC)

32

O/O THE ASST EXE.ENGINEER (ELEC),NO.2 SUB-DIVISIONBESOM, HOUSING BOARD COLONY, VIJAYANAGARBANGALORE, & R/A NO.36/A P M ENCLAVE, NEARMOTHER DAIRY CIRCLE, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,BANGALORE – 560 106.

5. SRI VENKATAPPA,S/O LATE DODDAVENKATAPPAAGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RETIRED ASSTEXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC), O/O THEEXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC), BESCOM, O & MSU-DIVISION, GOWRIBIDANUR & R/A NO.1136,OLD CI OFFICE ROAD, MADHAVANAGAR,GOWRIBIDANUR,CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS


AND:

1. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD(BOARD CONSITITUTED UNDER ELECTRICITYACT), REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN, CAUVERY BHAVABANGALORE-560001.

2. KARNATAKA VIDYUTH PRASARANA NIGAMA LIMITEDREP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR(ADMINISTRATIVE AND HUMAN RESOURCESDEVELOPMENT)KPTCL CAUVERY BHAVANBANGALORE-560001. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI GURUDEV I GACHCHINAMATH ADVOCATE FOR R1& 2)



PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BANGALORE

DATED 12.12.2008 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-E ISSUED BY

THE 2ND RESPONDENT MANAGING DIRECTOR, ONLY IN

SO FAR IT RELATES TO DENIAL OF INCREMENTAL

ARREARS FROM THE DATE OF ITS ENTITLEMENTS TO

33

TILL THE DATE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND WITH A

FURTHER DRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY

INCREMENTS AND ARREARS, TOGETHER WITH 18% OF

INTEREST FOR THE DELAYED PAYMENT.

IN WRIT PETITION NOS: 11300-302/2011 (S-RES):

BETWEEN:

1. SRI D. SWAMY GOWDA,S/O LATE DEVEGOWDAAGED ABOUT 58 YEARSPRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANTEXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC) CESCOMNAGAMANGALA SUB DIVISIONNAGAMANGALA R/AT HOUSE NO 19,2ND CROSS GROUP 1 KHB COLONY HOOTAGALLI,MYSORE -18.

2. SMT PAPAMMA,LATE PANDURANGAAGED ABOUT 70 YEARSRETIRED SANITARY WORKERO/O THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC)BESCOM, NORTH DIVISON RAJAJINAGARBANGALORE .

3. SRI B C RAJASHEKAR,S/O LATE B N CHANNAPPAAGED ABOUT 69 YEARSRETIRED ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELEC)O/O THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC)KPTCL SRS PEENYA, PEENYA BANGALORER/AT NO 40 17TH CROSS 12TH B MAINMALLESHWARAM,BANGALORE 03 . ... PETITIONERS


AND:

1. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD,(BOARD CONSTITUED UNDER ELECTRICITY ACT)REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN

34

CAUVERY BHAVANBANGALORE 560 001 .

2. KARNATAKA VIDYUTH PRASARANA NIGAMA LTD.,REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR(ADMINISTRATIVE AND HUMAN RESEOURCESDEVELOPMENT) KPTCL CAUVERY BHAVANBANGALORE 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B C PRABHAKAR ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRIGURUDEV IN GACHCHIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1)



PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS & QUASH

THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT.12.12.08 MARKED AT ANN-E,

ISSUED BY THE R2 MANAGING DIRECTOR, ONLY IN SO

FAR IT RELATES TO DENIAL OF INCREMENTAL ARREARS

FROM THE DATE OF ITS ENTITLEMENTS TO TLL THE

DATE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER & WITH A FURTHER


& ARREARS, TOGETHER WITH 18% OF INTEREST FOR


IN WRIT PETITION NOS.22142-145/2011 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI NARASIMHAIAH,S/O SRI PARAMESWARAIAHAGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,SENIOR ASSISTANTO/O THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC.)N4 SUB-DIVISION, PEENYA,BANGALORE-560058R/A NO. 1093, DEFENCE COLONY, BAGALAGUNTEENAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE-560073.

2. SMT. LAKKAMMA V,W/O SRI B H LAKSHAMANAAGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,SENIOR ASSISTANTO/O THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC.)

35

BESCOM, PEENYA DIVISIONBANGALORE-560010R/A NO. 5238/3, SUBHAS NAGAR,NEAR SWAUSILK FACTORY, NELAMANGALA TOWN-562123

3. SMT. P LAKSHMINARASAMMA,D/O SRI PAPAIAHAGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,SENIOR ASSISTANTO/O THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC.)BESCOM, PEENYA DIVISION3RD STAGE, NEAR UCO BANK, BANGALORE-58& R/A NO. 881, KAILASAM 3RD CROSS,KEMPEGOWDANAGAR, T DASARAHALLI, BLORE-58

4. SRI S N BYRASETTY,S/O LATE NANJASETTYAGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,JUNIOR ENGINEER (ELE)O/O THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC.)BESCOM, PEENYA DIVISION, 3RD PHASE6TH MAIN, PIA PEENYA, BANGALORE-560058& R/A NO. 8198, "SREE BYRAVESWARA NILAYAPATEL CHANNAPPA BADAVANE,NELAMANGALA-562 123. ... PETITIONERS


AND:

1. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD(BOARD CONSTITUTED UNDER ELECTRICITY ACTREP BY ITS CHAIRMANCAUVERY BHAVANBANGALORE-560001.

2. KARNATAKA VIDYUTH PRASARANA NIGAMA LIMITEDREP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR(ADMINISTRATIVE AND HUMAN RESOURCESDEVELOPMENT)K P T C L., CAUVERY BHAVANBANGALORE-560001. ... RESPONDENTS

36

(BY SRI B C PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)



PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING

NO. DT 12.12.08 MARKED AT ANNEX-E ISSUED BY THE

2ND RES. MANAGING DIRECTOR, ONLY IN SO FAR IT

RELATES TO DENIAL OF INCREMENTAL ARREARS FROM

THE DATE OF ITS INTITLEMENTS TO TILL THE DATE OF

THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND WITH A FURTHER


AND ARREARS TO GETHER WITH 18% OF INTEREST FOR


THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FORPRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, N. KUMAR J., MADETHE FOLLOWING: -

ORDER

These batch of writ petitions are listed before us

by an order dated 24.11.2011 of the Hon’ble Chief

Justice, at the request of the learned Single Judge, who

has referred the following points for consideration to be

decided by a larger bench.

(1) Whether the order passed by the learned

Single Judge of this Court in

W.P.Nos.21602-21610/2009 dated

11.1.2011 in M.G. Narasihmamurthy and

Others vs Karnataka Electricity Board and

another which has followed the earlier order

in Writ Petition No.21586 – 21599/2009 in

37

Kempanna and other vs Karnataka

Electricity Board dated 03.12.2010, have

been correctly decided in the light of their

being a finality to the claim of similarly

placed petitioner in Writ Appeal

No.2014/1991 c/w 2438-2451/1991 dated

03.08.1995?

(2) Whether the Officers/employees would

be entitled to the benefit that was granted to

Prasanna Kumar by a Division Bench of this

Court in Writ Appeal No.5607/1998 and

affirmed by the judgment of the Supreme

Court in Civil Appeal 7763/2001?

(3) Whether the Officer/Employees can be

denied the benefit in view of the Supreme

Court having rejected the impleading

application, by similarly placed officers in

the case of Prasanna Kumar when they had

approached the Supreme Court, on the

ground that their application was belated ?

2. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.4743-4748/2010,

8624/2007, 8625/2007, 40258-40260/2010 17792-

17796/2010, 11300–11302/2011 and 22142-145/2011

are some of them workmen and most of them are

38

officers, and the petitioners in W.P.Nos.6638/2008,

7356/2008, 8458/2008, 8834/2008, 9729/2008,

9730/2008, 11798/2008 are all officers, who are

working in the erstwhile KEB. The erstwhile KEB had

framed regulations known as Recruitment and

Promotion Regulations 1960, in exercise of power under

Section 79 (c) of the Electricity Supplies Act, 1948.

Regulation 8 prescribes that all appointments by direct

recruitment shall be on probation for one year or for

such term as may be provided for in the regulation

specifically made for the said purpose. The petitioners

in all these writ petitions are appointed subsequent to

8.3.1977. The employees – Union representing the

workmen had submitted a memorandum of demand

which was admitted in Conciliation Proceedings, a

Settlement was arrived at under Section 12(3) of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 8.3.1977. It was

agreed that the Board was at liberty to fix the pay and

allowances admissible during the period of probation in

case of appointment to various posts on or after

1.4.1976 against the direct recruitment quota.

39

Pursuant to the settlement, the Board issued an order

dated 23.4.1977 surveying the revision of pay scales,

allowances etc., as follows :-

“In respect of the employees appointed on or

after 8.3.1977 against the Direct

Recruitment quota, wherever probation is

prescribed, their pay will be as per Annexure

to the order.”

and the annexure contains the following

note:

“In cases where pay during probation is not

mentioned, it should be taken that whenever

probation is prescribed for a post, then the

pay during probation for such a post should

be fixed at one increment lower than the

minimum of the scale. This order is deemed

to have come into effect from 8.3.1977.”

Pursuant to the said order the service

regulations were amended to the following

effect:-

“During the period of probation the employee

shall be entitled to pay at one increment less

than the minimum of the time scale of the

40

post to which he is appointed. After

declaration of satisfactory completion of

probation by a competent authority, the

employee will be started on the minimum of

the time scale of the post from the date of

such satisfactory completion of probation.

3. It was found that as many as 32 workmen, who

have been covered under the settlement were appointed

after March 1977 for various posts. They preferred writ

petitions before this court claiming that the Board by

not providing minimum starting salary to the

probationers had acted in violation of the fundamental

right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of

India. The said writ petition 13113/1983 was allowed

by a learned Single Judge of this court holding that the

probationers and regular employees performed the same

duties and in accordance with the Doctrine of Equal Pay

for Equal Work, the discrimination in payment of initial

time scales of grade to the probationers is illegal. On

that finding, the learned Single Judge struck down the

Board’s decision and directed the management to re-fix

the salary in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the

41

judgment of the learned Single Judge, the Board

preferred writ appeals before the Division Bench in

W.A.No.2438-2451/1999 and connected matters. The

Division Bench held that the probationers cannot claim

pay on par with the regular employees and the nature of

appointment of a probationer would be different and

distinct from that of a regular employee. It was also

observed that regular employees are entitled to a large

number of advantages depending on the number of

years of service and their tenure of service. It was also

observed that workmen were not entitled to those

privileges unless they completed the probationary period

and their work was found satisfactory. With these

observations the Division Bench allowed the appeals,

set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. The

said order of the Division Bench has attained finality.

However, along with the said batch of writ petitions, W P

No.12230/1987 filed by one Sri N.G. Prasanna Kumar

appointed as Junior Engineer in August 1977 was also

clubbed as in the aforesaid batch of writ appeals the

Division Bench was considering the case of workmen

42

who are bound by a settlement reached under the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and to give effect to the

said settlement, the Board has passed the impugned

order. The Division Bench held as the said Prasanna

Kumar is not a workmen he is not bound by the

settlement, as his case has to be decided on its merits

separately. Therefore, the order passed in his writ

petition by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ

petition was also set aside, but the matter was remitted

back to the learned Single Judge for fresh disposal.

Learned Single Judge interpreting the order issued by

the respondent fixing the pay scale after revision of pay

scales was of the view, that the pay revision has been

effected to benefit the employees and therefore, an

interpretation has to be placed which will be beneficial

to them and serve to further the purpose for which the

pay revision has been effected. It is not shown that any

statute exists which contemplates the fixation of a lower

emoluments to probationers. On the contrary, if we

peruse Annexures I to D, it is only in three cases, that a

different pay is fixed for the probationers and in all

43

other cases, it has to be presumed that Clause 4 of the

order will apply. As such no illegality will be caused, if

the minimum in the pay scale is paid to the

probationers in the category of Junior Engineers in

terms of Clause 4 of the order. Besides, if Clause 4 of

Annexure D is ignored while interpreting the pay

revision order, it will amount to amending various

conditions accompanying the pay revision and would

deny the benefit that it intended to extend to a large

section of employees covered by the order. The

schedule to the order Annexure-D cannot prevail over

the dispensation made by the order nor can it denude

the benefit under the order. He therefore, proceeded to

pass the following order :-

“14. In the result the petitioner succeeds. A

Junior Engineer (now Assistant Engineer) on

probation is eligible to start on the minimum

in the revised scale of pay as revised by

Annexure D order. In other words, he will be

entitled to be paid Rs.720/- as against

Rs.690/- as indicated in Annexure I to

Annexure D. As Annexure E is contrary to

44

what is stated above, and is issued only by

the ministerial officer of the respondent, the

same is invalid and set aside. The writ

petition is allowed.”

4. Aggrieved by the same the Board preferred an

appeal in W.A.No.5607/1998. The Appellate Court did

not fully agree with the reasoning of the learned Single

Judge. The Division Bench held it is a fact that fixation

of pay of a probationer is different from that of a regular

officer. Regular employee is entitled for large number of

advantages and other service benefits, whereas the

probationer is not entitled to those advantages unless

the probationary period is completed, work is found

satisfactory and there is no right to claim continuation

in service. But proceeded to grant the relief on the

ground that when the revised pay scale specifically

applies to probationers also, there is nothing wrong or

illegal in applying the same to probationers also. As per

clause IV probationers appointed on or after 1.4.1976

shall be started in the minimum of the revised pay scale

and difference if any between the existing emoluments

45

and revised emoluments shall be protected. In the

present case, the pay scales are revised after the

respondent was selected and he was appointed. The

appointment order is dated 9.7.1988. Therefore, he is

entitled for revision of pay scale. Aggrieved by this order

the Board preferred a special leave petition to the apex

court. Leave was granted and the appeal was numbered

as Civil Appeal No.7763/2001. During the pendency of

the said appeal 53 officers who are similarly placed as

that of N.G. Prasanna Kumar filed applications for

impleadment in the civil appeal before the Apex Court

claiming the benefit, which is granted to N.G. Prasanna

Kumar by this Court. The said appeal was heard and

the Apex Court declined to interfere with the orders

passed by this Court in exercise of its discretion under

Article 136 of the Constitution of India, because a very

small amount was involved in the matter. Therefore,

the appeal came to be dismissed. They also dismissed

all the impleading applications on the ground that they

have approached this Court belatedly. However, it was

made clear the question of law is left open. After the

46

disposal of the Writ Appeal the Board extended the

benefit to Prasanna Kumar paying him arrears for the

entire period and fixing the pay scale as directed. It is

after disposal of the appeal in the aforesaid manner by

the Apex Court, these impleading applicants, whose

applications came to be rejected on the ground that it is

belated and also those officers, who had not approached

the Court till then have chosen to file these writ

petitions before the Court seeking identical relief on the

basis of the order of the learned Single Judge as

affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court.

5. During the pendency of these writ petitions, before

these two proceedings attained finality, after filing of

some of the writ petitions probably the Board took note

of the two set of judgments, where the workmen were

denied the benefit, whereas the officers were granted the

benefit and took a decision to extend the benefit both to

workmen as well as to the officers alike. Consequently

they gave a notional fixation of pay from the date of

47

their appointment, but granted the monetary benefit

from 1.12.2008. In other words, the arrears payable to

them from the date of appointment till 1.12.2008 was

denied to them. Even after extending the said benefit

some of the petitioners, have approached this Court

claiming arrears.

The learned counsel for the petitioners contend

that when once this Court has placed an interpretation

on Clause IV of the order as well as appendix to the said

Clause and held the officers are entitled to the benefit of

fixation of pay scales from the date of their

appointment, the Board ought to have extended the said

benefit to all officers, who are similarly placed, whether

they approach the Court or not. When the said benefit

was not extended in spite of a Court order and when

they were constrained to approach the Court, it cannot

be said that they have approached the Court belatedly

and they are not entitled to pay fixation in like terms

and that they are entitled to arrears of such pay

fixation. Though 53 officers filed an application before

the Apex Court seeking impleadment and the same was

48

rejected on the ground that they have approached the

Court belatedly that does not take away their right to

file a writ petition claiming the benefit, which this Court

has extended in the case of Prasanna Kumar. It is

recurring cause of action. There is no question of bar or

time limit to file the writ petitions and therefore, it was

submitted that all these writ petitions are to be allowed

granting not only pay fixation but the arrears as claimed

by them. Though now the Board has passed an order

fixing their pay in terms of the revised pay scale

granting benefit from the date of appointment, as

arrears are not granted from 1.12.2008 they are entitled

to arrears. In spite of several judgments holding that

there is no bar of limitation, that every person similarly

placed, who have not approached the court for granting

relief and even if belatedly such approach is made, on

the ground of delay and laches, such benefit cannot be

denied. In the alternative it is submitted that assuming

that the writ petitions are filed nearly after lapse of 10

years and recovery of money is barred by limitation,

they are entitled to atleast three years arrears and

49

therefore, appropriate orders are to be passed granting

the said relief.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

Board submitted that the interpretation placed by the

management is accepted by the Court, insofar the

workmen are concerned. That interpretation did not

find favour when it came to the officers. Both the

orders have attained finality. In order to have peace in

the establishment, the Board has taken decision to

extend the benefit even to the workmen, who are held to

be not entitled to in law and also extended the benefit

to the employees who were under probationary period

from the date of appointment. However, no arrears were

paid to them. Similarly, even officers are extended the

said benefit. In respect of the order passed by this

Court, several persons had approached the court

belatedly and the Supreme Court has not decided the

question of law finally, and has left the same to be

decided by this Court in these proceedings. They are

justified in denying the arrears and therefore, he

50

submits as the Board has already granted the pay

fixation to them, nothing is left to be considered. The

prayer in the writ petitions is complied with. But

insofar as the arrears is concerned they are not entitled

to and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed to

that extent.

7. In the light of the aforesaid facts and rival

contentions, we have to decide the aforesaid questions

of law, referred to us. What prompted the learned

Single Judge to refer this matter to a Larger Bench in

another batch of writ petitions filed by officers in

W.P.No.21586 – 21599/2009 is that a learned Single

Judge following the judgment in N.G. Prasanna Kumar’s

case held those petitioners are entitled to not only pay

fixation but also arrears from the date of their initial

appointment. The said order of the learned Single

Judge was followed by another learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.21602 – 21610/2009 (S-R) disposed of on

11.01.2011. The learned Single Judge was of the view,

that when the claim of the workmen is finally decided by

51

this Court, then learned Single Judges were not justified

in granting any relief contrary to the decision of the

Division Bench of this Court. Further he took note of

the judgment of the Apex Court in Prasanna Kumar’s

case where the Apex Court declined to grant the relief to

53 impleading applicants, which is granted to Prasanna

Kumar and also dismissed their applications on the

ground that it is belated. Therefore, he was of the view,

that in the light of the aforesaid undisputed facts in the

form of judicial pronouncement the question of blindly

following the decision of Prasanna Kumar’s case and

granting relief to these petitioners would not arise, at

any rate, it requires consideration by a larger Bench

and that is how these writ petitions are before us.

8. Re - Point No.1: In the case of workmen in

W.A.No.2014/1991 and connected matters which was

decided on 3.8.1995 the Division Bench of this court

held as under :-

“The learned Single Judge was in error in

referring to the two decisions where the

principle of equal work for equal pay is

52

applied. The learned Judge with respect

overlooked that the principle was applied in

caes where the same set of employees were

discriminated and not in cases where the

employees belong to different class. The

reference to decision reported in A.I.R. 1987

S.C. 2342 (DAILY R.C. LABOUR, P & T,

Department Vs. UNION OF INDIA) by the

learned Single Judge is not correct. The

Supreme Court observed in that case that a

State cannot deny the minimum pay in the

pay scales to regularly employed workmen,

even though the Government may not be

compelled to extend all the benefits enjoyed

to all regularly recruited employees. The

question arose before the Supreme Court as

some of the regularly recruited workmen

were employed on less than the minimum

pay scales. The observation made by the

Supreme Court cannot be imported while

examining the case of probationers in

contradiction to the regular employees. It

also cannot be overlooked that the Board

Order dated April 22, 1977 was passed in

pursuance of settlement reached between

the employees union and the appellant

board. The settlement specifically

authorises the Board to fix the scales of the

53

probationers and which can be different from

the scales of the regular employees. The

Board in pursuance of the settlement passed

the order on April 22, 1977 and the Service

Regulations were accordingly amended. We

do not find any infirmity in the action of the

appellant - Board and the challenge to the

Board order and Service Regulations was

without any merit. The attention of the

learned Judge was not invited to the

distinction between the probationer and

regular employees and that led to an error in

holding that Article 14 of the Constitution

was attracted to the facts of the case.”

In the end the order passed by the learned Single Judge

was set aside and the writ petitions were dismissed. It

is submitted that this judgment was not brought to the

notice of the learned Single Judges, who have passed

the said order. If only this judgment had been brought

to their notice, the last paragraph in the aforesaid order

would show that the case of Prasanna Kumar would

stand on a different footing from the rest of the cases of

the workmen, which was decided by the Division Bench

and in fact the learned Single Judges have followed the

54

principle laid down in Prasanna Kumar’s case, which

has no application to the case of workmen. Therefore,

in the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Division

Bench which is binding, the judgment rendered by the

learned Single Judges in the aforesaid two batch of writ

petitions, which is not correctly decided. Accordingly,

point No.1 is answered.

9. Re - Point No.2. Insofar as the question whether

other officers, who are similarly placed as that of

Prasanna Kumar are entitled to the benefit of the order

of the Division Bench and as affirmed in the judgment

of the Supreme Court is concerned, now it has become

purely academic. Though the question of law was left

open to be decided, subsequent to the judgment of the

Supreme Court when the Board has taken a decision to

extend the benefit of fixation of pay scale in terms of the

order passed in Prasanna Kumar’s case to all

employees/officers who are similarly placed, the said

relief sought for by the petitioners in these cases has

become infructuous. However, we make it clear all

55

officers, who are similarly placed as that of Prasanna

Kumar are entitled to pay fixation, without any

deduction from the date of their respective appointment.

It is submitted a revised notional pay fixation has been

granted and they shall be paid the revised pay scale

from 1.12.2008. Therefore, point No.2 is answered

accordingly.

10. Re - Point No.3 : In the light of what we have

stated while dealing with point No.2 on the ground that

53 officers approached the Apex Court in the pending

appeal preferred against Prasanna Kumar by the Board

their applications came to be rejected on the ground

that it is belated, and as the Board has extended the

benefit of fixation of the pay scales in terms of the order

in Prasanna Kumar’s case, it cannot be said that

rejection of their impleading application in any way has

affected pay fixation insofar as they are concerned.

11. However, the question, which remains to be

considered is that although these petitioners are

granted individual pay fixation from the date of

56

appointment and are granted monetary benefits w.e.f.

1.12.2008, are they entitled to monetary benefits from

the date of entry into service till 1.12.2008. In support

of their contention that all the benefits, which is granted

to Prasanna Kumar should be extended to those

employees, who have filed the writ petitions or not, even

when the petitions are filed belatedly, learned counsel

relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court. A Division

Bench of this court in NAGAPPA VS. STATE OF

KARNATAKA reported in ILR 1986 KAR 3093 at

paragraph 2 has held as under :-

“2. We have perused the said decisions and

also the averments made in the writ petition.

In our opinion, it is not necessary for every

person to approach this court for a relief

similar to the one already by this Court in

the aforesaid decisions. If a decision has

been rendered by this Court, it would be

proper for the authorities to follow and

extend the benefit of that decision in like

cases coming before them. That should be

the guiding principle to be borne in mind in

the administration. It is not proper to drive

57

every person to seek relief in this Court. It is

indeed the duty of the authorities to extend

the benefits of the concluded decision of this

Court to all other similar cases.”

12. The Apex Court in the case of M.R. GUPTA Vs.

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (1995) 5

SUPREME COURT CASES 628 at paragraphs 4 and 5 is

held as under :-

“4. The Tribunal has upheld the

respondents’ objection based on the ground

of limitation. It has been held that the

appellant had been expressly told by the

order dated 12.8.1985 and by another letter

dated 7.3.1987 that his pay had been

correctly fixed so that he should have

assailed that order at that time “which was

one time action”. The Tribunal held that the

raising of this matter after lapse of 11 years

since the initial pay fixation in 1978 was

hopelessly barred by time. Accordingly, the

application was dismissed as time barred

without going into the merits of the

appellant’s claim for proper pay fixation.

58

5. Having heard both sides, we are satisfied

that the Tribunal has missed the real point

and overlooked the crux of the matter. The

appellant’s grievance that his pay fixation

was not in accordance with the rules was the

assertion of a continuing wrong against him

which gave rise to a recurring cause of

action each time he was paid a salary which

was not computed in accordance with the

rules. So long as the appellant is in service,

a fresh cause of action arises every month

when he is paid his monthly salary on the

basis of a wrong computation made contrary

to rules. It is no doubt true that if the

appellant’s claim is found correct on merits,

he would be entitled to be paid according to

the properly fixed pay scale in the future and

the question of words, the appellant’s claim,

if any, for recovery of arrears calculated on

the basis of difference in the pay which has

become time barred would not be

recoverable, but he would be entitled to

proper fixation of his pay in accordance with

rules and to cessation of a continuing wrong

if on merits his claim is justified. Similarly,

any other consequential relief claimed by

him, such as, promotion etc., would also be

subject to the defence of laches etc. to

59

disentitle him to those reliefs. The pay

fixation can be made only on the basis of the

situation existing on 1-8-1978 without

taking into account any other consequential

relief, which may be barred by his laches

and the bar of limitation. It is to this limited

extent of proper pay fixation the application

cannot be treated as time barred since it is

based on a recurring cause of action.”

13. In the decision of RAJASTHAN STATE

ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS VS. SULTAN

MOHAMMED reported in 2000 LAB IC 1550 at

paragraphs 18 and 23 after following the aforesaid

judgment in M.R. Gupta v. Union of India and others,

reported in (1995) 5 SCC 628, the apex court held as

follows :-

“18. Thus the non-fixation of pay in a pay

scale in accordance with the rule being a

continuing cause of action, a claim in that

regard cannot be rejected on the ground of

laches alone. However, the consequential

relief in terms of seniority and promotion

shall be subject to defence of laches. In the

instant case, no consequential relief in terms

60

of seniority and promotion has been claimed.

If such a claim is made, the same shall be

considered in accordance with the rules

without prejudice to the rights of the other

parties.

23. Thus, when a decision is given in some

cases and the said decision has attained

finality, in all fairness the authorities instead

of driving each person affected to the Court

of law, on representation being made should

scrutinize such cases within the shortest

possible time and if the claim is found to be

covered by the decision of the court, such

persons should be given the benefit of the

decision. If it is found that the case of the

person is not covered by the decision of the

Court, the representation should be decided

by a speaking order and same should be

communicated to the person affected

forthwith.”

14. From the aforesaid judgments two aspects become

clear. Firstly, when a decision is given in some case

which has attained finality, authorities instead of

driving each person affected to approach the court of

law, such person should be given the benefit of the

61

decision. It is not necessary for every person to

approach the court for the similar relief to the one

already granted by the court. In fact, it is the duty of

the public authorities to extend the benefits of the

concluded decisions to all other similar cases. The

second principle which is also well settled is, in case of

recurring cause of action, the question of limitation to

enforce a right would not arise. Especially in case of

non-fixation of pay-scale in accordance with the Rules,

the injury caused is a recurring one. Therefore, if a

person is entitled to a particular pay-scale and if it is

denied to him, he can approach the court during his

service as it is a recurring cause of action. However, it

is now equally well settled this recurring cause of action

should not be confused to the consequential relief to be

granted after granting the main relief. Insofar as this

consequential or ancillary reliefs are concerned, the bar

of limitation, defence of laches are attracted and once

they are established, though a person is entitled to the

same relief, he may not be entitled to the consequential

reliefs and these consequential reliefs could be denied

62

as time barred as it is not based on recurring cause of

action. It is in the background of this settled legal

position, we have to see the facts of the case and its

application.

The pay fixation is claimed on the basis of the

order passed by the Board which is dated 12.3.1977 is

with effect from 1.4.1976. When the benefit under this

order was denied to both workmen and officers, writ

petitions came to be filed complaining of discrimination.

W.P.NO.13133/1983 and some of the writ petitions

were filed in 1986 and the writ petition filed by

Prasanna Kumar is of the year 1987. The writ petition

filed by the workmen came to be allowed on 4.12.1990.

The writ appeal preferred against the said order came to

be allowed on 3.8.1995. After remission to the learned

Single Judge, the writ petition filed by Prasanna Kumar

came to be disposed of on 14.10.1998. The writ appeal

filed against the said order came to be dismissed on

5.12.2007 i.e. nearly 30 years after the Government

order. Admittedly, none of these petitioners challenged

the Board order till the judgment of the Apex Court on

63

5.12.2007. These writ petitions are filed in the year

2008 and some of them have filed writ petition in 2011.

53 officers filed an impleading application before the

Apex Court for their impleadment and for extending the

benefit of the order in Prasanna Kumar’s case to them

also. Though in the aforesaid judgment the Apex Court

held when a decision is given in similar case and the

said decision has attained finality, in all fairness the

authorities instead of driving each person effected to the

court of law on representation being made should

consider each such case within the shortest possible

time and the claim is found to be covered by the

decision of the Court, such person should be given the

benefit of the decision. Even though those 53 persons

had approached the court by filing application, it

dismissed the application on the ground of bar of

limitation and refused to extend the benefit of the order

to be passed by them in the said case. Therefore, it only

shows the law as aforesaid is not an invariable rule. It

depends on the facts of each case. Nevertheless, merely

because their applications were dismissed, it does not

64

mean they are not entitled to the relief. Therefore,

rightly they and others who are similarly placed have

filed these writ petitions. When this court granted the

relief to Prasanna Kumar who is similarly placed, which

order has been confirmed by the Supreme Court,

however, keeping open the question of law so far as this

Court is concerned, the said issue has attained finality.

The respondent Board is bound by the said decision. In

the light of the aforesaid law laid down by the Supreme

Court and this Court, even though the petitioners have

not approached this Court, they are entitled to the

benefit of fixation of pay-scale though belatedly after

filing of some writ petitions, the respondent-Board

realised its responsibility and in all fairness, they fixed

the pay-scale of all these petitioners who are before the

Court and who are also not before the Court. In

addition they also extended the same benefit to the

workman who have lost the battle. After pay fixation

they gave the pay to them from the date of initial

appointment. Therefore, they gave effect to the law

declared by this court. They treated all persons who are

65

similarly placed alike and thus they obeyed the mandate

of Article 16 of the constitution. However, in the matter

of granting arrears they made a distinction. There was

a specific order in Prasanna Kumar’s case who was

fighting the litigation from 1997 nearly for 20 long years

and when he was succeeded he was not only entitled to

the benefit of pay-scale, but also to all ancillary benefits

flowing from the date of the writ petiton was granted.

But granting of these ancillary benefits to Prasanna

Kumar ipso facto will not confer any right on persons

approaching this Court 30 years after the order as held

by the Supreme Court. Bar of limitation, defence of

laches all come into play insofar as extending these

consequential and ancilliary benefits. It is in that

context the respondent took a policy decision to pay

monitory benefit from 1.12.2008 i.e. within a reasonable

time after the judgment of the Apex Court. In the facts

of this case in the light of the law as laid down by the

Apex Court, we are satisfied that action of the

respondent in not extending the benefit of arrears to

these persons who have approached the court 30 years

66

after the order is, reasonable and it does not violate

Article 14 of the Constitution as these persons

constitute a class different from Prasanna Kumar who

fought the litigation for 20 long years and has been

given the benefit of the arrears. Both of them cannot be

put on par. Therefore, in the light of the discussion

made above, the denial of arrears to all the petitioners

from the date of their initial appointment till 1.12.2008

cannot be found fault with. Accordingly, these writ

petitions are rejected.

No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

NG*/rs

writ petition nos.4743-48/2010 (s-res) c/w w.p nos. 8624...

Documents