The Division Court dismissed the writ appeal filed by KPCL against the Single Judge's order directing the extension of revised pension benefits to former employees who retired between specified dates, holding that KPCL lacked authority to create classifications not present in the parent Government Order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:31337-DB WA No. 84 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL No. 84 OF 2024 (S-R)
BETWEEN:
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI PRADYUMNA L. NARASIMHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: High Court of Karnataka
R/AT HOUSE No.52, 3RD CROSS, SHREE DEVARAJ URS LAYOUT, ‘B’ BLOCK, DAVANAGERE- 577006.
II FLOOR, JANAPRIYA BHARATI ENCLAVE, SUNKADAKATE, BENGALURU-560090.
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THIS HON’BLE COURT DATED 10 OCTOBER 2023 RENDERED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. 17257/2015 AND OTHER CONNECTED MATTERS ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND)
This writ appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.17257 of 2015 dated 10.10.2023.
05.11.2012. The KPCL, while giving effect to the government's order, classified the employees who retired or expired while in service between 01.01.2011 and 31.03.2012.
10.1 The learned advocate further submits that fixing the cutoff date for the new pension is in the domain of the employer and cannot be dictated by the employees. The employees who retired after 01.01.2011 benefit from the revision of the pay scale, but for
the creation of a class of employees who retired after 01.01.2011, parity between the employees of the KPCL would not have been maintained.
10.2. Learned advocate further states that in view of a group of employees having approached the KPCL willing to take the benefit of revision of pension in terms of the government order, in modification of the order of KPCL dated 05.11.2012, prescribed benefit has been given from 04.05.2017. The respondentsemployees who refused to follow the other employees cannot claim the benefit from the settlement. The settlement between the KPCL and some of the petitioners who have withdrawn the writ petition would not create any vesting right with the petitioners to claim the same benefit.
01.01.2011 and 31.03.2012 is not permissible unless authorised by the State Government under the Government Order 03.05.2012. The government order does not permit further classification or reclassification of a class of employees.
11.1 Learned advocate further submits that realizing the wrong interpretation or wrong classification made, the KPCL negotiated with the remaining employees and settled the revision of pension in terms of the government order, however, effective from 04.05.2017. The modification of the KPCL order in conformity with the order of the government would be evidence that the understanding of the KPCL of the government order and the introduction of another class of employees was justifiably incorrect. It is submitted that the KPCL having accepted the revision of pension to other employees similarly placed and retired during the same period, on parity, the petitioners/respondent Nos. 3 to 9 are entitled to a revised pension in terms of the government order.
government order applies to KPCL employees. The KPCL as an instrumentality of the State, in compliance with the State Government policy issued order dated 05.11.2012. In the said order, contrary to the Government Order dated 03.05.2012, the KPCL created a different class of employees who have retired or expired while in service between 01.01.2011 and 31.03.2012.
who retired between 01.01.2011 and 31.03.2012 cannot be accepted. In the absence of any authorization in favour of KPCL under the Government Order dated 03.05.2012 empowering such classification, it is safe to presume that the State Government while issuing the Government Order dated 03.05.2012 has taken note or has knowledge of the pay revision to some of the employees in the agreed classification of employees to consider for revision of pension. The further classification of employees in the absence of specific power under the government order in favour of KPCL, the subject classification of new class of employees is impermissible.
have retired or expired while in service prior to 01.07.2005. The KPCL by giving effect to the government order issued an order dated 31.08.2007. Similar to the present case, the KPCL created a different class of employees who have retired or expired between 01.04.2003 and 01.07.2005. The said classification was the subject matter before this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.15351-15352 of 2011 and allied matters in the case of Sri Kumbaiah and another vs. The State of Karnataka and others . The Division Bench of this Court by order dated 08.11.2012 negatived the contention of the KPCL that such further classification was as a result of revision of pay scale.
"33. Therefore, what emerges is that a Settlement made with the employees' union is binding on the management and in the instant case, when in terms of Clause XVIII of the settlement dated 25.09.2006, it is stated that pensionary benefits including family pension shall be regulated as prevailing in the State Government from time to time, the same must be made fully applicable to those employees who retired from 01.04.2003 onwards particularly those who retired between 01.04.2003 and 01.07.2005."
In view of the disposal of the main appeal, pending
interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of.
Sd/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE
MV, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether KPCL was authorized to create a separate class of employees for pension revision contrary to the State Government order?
Whether the Single Judge's direction to extend revised pension benefits to the respondents was justified?
Whether settlements with other employees could be imposed on the respondents to deny benefits?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sri Kumbaiah and another vs. The State of Karnataka and othersReferred¶73
Sri Kumbaiah and another vs. The State of Karnataka and others
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Managing Director, Karnataka Power Corporation Limited
S. Ramesh
Hiremath G. R.
Satish Ramachandra Jog
Suresh Chandra Hegde
Kulkarni M. S.
N. V. Anjaria
K. V. Aravind
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
