Partly allowed

Sri. S.D.H. Patil S/O Devappa v. the Karnataka Power

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2024WP/103287/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retired employee sought direction that KPTCL consider his representations for additional increment and pay parity with a junior, pursuant to an earlier High Court order remitting the matter. Court partly allowed the petition directing respondent No.1 to decide within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.1 directed to consider petitioner's case per Annexures-B, D, H and K within twelve weeks of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Sri. S.D.H. Patil S/O Devappa Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7761 WP No. 103287 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.103287 OF 2017(S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI S.D.H. PATIL S/O. DEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCC: RETD., R/O: PLOT NO.799, BUDA SCHEME, NO.40, 5^TH STAGE, HANUMAN NAGAR, BELAGAVI.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI T. M. NADAF, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE KARNATAKA POWER, TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU – 09, REP BY ITS CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶14

Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE), O AND M DIVISION, HESCOM, NEHRU NAGAR, BELAGAVI – 590 010.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI S.M.TONNE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B.S.KAMTE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO TAKE ACTION IN TERMS OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.17042/2005 DATED:11.12.2007 AND REPRESENTATION DATED:31.03.2008, 18.08.2015 AND 09.12.2016, VIDE ANNEXURE-B, D, H AND K, RESPECTIVELY, FOR STEPPING UP OF SALARY OF THE PETITIONER BY ISSUING A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND ETC.,

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7761 WP No. 103287 of 2017

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to respondent No.2 to pass orders on the representations made by the petitioner and the

¶23

recommendation made by the second respondent as per communications at Annexures-E, F & G.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, though he was entitled for additional increment and consequent revision of his pay; neglecting his entitlement, the respondents-authority had granted additional increment and pay revision to his juniors, who were admitted to the

¶25

service subsequent the petitioner being admitted to the service. He further submits that, this Court by its order dated 11.12.2007 in W.P. No.17042/2005, produced at Annexure-B, while setting aside the endorsement earlier issued by the respondents-authority, had remitted the matter to the respondents for fresh consideration.

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7761 WP No. 103287 of 2017

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the earlier order (Annexure-A) and subsequent order (Annexure-C) are similar, except an addition of paragraph No.3, in which it is stated that, since the petitioner herein had availed leave without pay, consideration of his case for annual increment was deferred from 01.04.1990 to 19.08.1990. As such, there is disparity in payment of emoluments to S.R.Koujalagi, compared to the petitioner herein.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the annexures produced to the petition, more particularly the communications issued by the second respondent to the first respondent submits that despite furnishing of all the records, the first respondent has not taken any decision in the matter. Hence, this petition.

¶29

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand submits that, the order passed at Annexure-C, dated 18.03.2008, has remained unchallenged and has attained finality. He submits that, though communications were

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7761 WP No. 103287 of 2017

¶31

issued by the second respondent to the first respondent, they were not considered inasmuch as the petitioner cannot claim parity with that of the case of S.R. Koujalagi. He submits that, as regard the case of S.R. Koujalagi, he had acquired additional qualification, even as in the year 1984, and had earned additional increment on that count, whereas the petitioner had acquired the additional qualification only in the year 1996. Accordingly, he was given additional increment in the year 1987. He submits that the gap between 1984 and 1996 has continued till the petitioner retiring from the services. He submits that, disparity is not on account of non-application of mind by the respondent as alleged by the petitioner, but on account of acquisition of additional qualification by the respective candidates. He also submits that another aspect of the matter was the petitioner had availed leave without pay during 1990. That these two factors are the cause in petitioner receiving lesser scale than that of the said S.R. Koujalagi.

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7761 WP No. 103287 of 2017

¶33

In response, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, Annexure-C was not challenged by the petitioner in view of the fact that the respondents were considering the case of the petitioner, more particularly upon the communication issued by second respondent to the first respondent. The petitioner being under bonafide impression and fond hope did not pursue the matter.

¶34

Be that as it may. In view of the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter, more particularly with regard to the communications that have ensued between respondent No.2 and respondent No.1, perusal of which indicate that the case of the petitioner was reopened and was kept for reconsideration and necessary records were called for and one of the communications at Annexure-E, there is earlier an observation made by second respondent that the petitioner is also entitled for additional increment as that of S.R. Koujalagi, this court is of considered view that the petition be partly allowed directing the respondent No.1 to consider the case of the petitioner as per the order

¶35

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7761 WP No. 103287 of 2017

¶36

dated 11.12.2007 at Annexure-B and the representations dated 31.03.2008, 18.08.2015 & 09.12.2016 at

¶37

Annexure-D, H & K.

¶38

Such consideration shall be made within an outer limit of twelve weeks from the date of receipt

¶39

of certified copy of this order.

¶40

SD/-

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

VNP*/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Sri. S.D.H. Patil S/O Devappa v. the Karnataka Power

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. S.D.H. Patil S/O Devappa v. the Karnataka Power

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V. Eranna S/O.Nagappa Vs Pragati Grameena Bank

Jagadeesh S/O. Veerayya Karisiddimath Vs the General Manager

The Management of Nwkrtc Vs Shamshuddin S/O Hasansab Attar

Venkataraman S/O. Gutya Harijan Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Bhimappa S/O Adiveppa Vs the Union of India

Murigeppa S/O Parasappa Malligawad Vs the General Manager