Allowed

V Nagaraja v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC12 Feb 2024WP/29231/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retired BESCOM senior assistant sought mandamus to grant one annual increment for service rendered before superannuation. Court held entitlement flows from Regulation 40(1), unaffected by retirement, relying on Division Bench judgment affirmed by Supreme Court, and directed respondents to consider his representation within three months.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus directing respondents to consider representation dated 07.07.2023 for grant of annual increment per Regulation 40(1), within three months.

V Nagaraja Vs the Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:5779 WP No. 29231 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.29231 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

V.NAGARAJA S/O MUDDAIAHA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RETIRED SENIOR ASSISTANT BESCOM KANAKAPURA DIVISION KANAKAPURA - 562 117 R/AT NO.93/2, 6^TH CROSS CHAKRANAGAR ANDARAHALLI VISHWANEEDAM POST NEAR CHANDRASHEKARA ASHRAMA BENGALURU - 560 091 SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFITS IS NOT CLAIMED

¶10

Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI.SRINIVASA K, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KPTCL CORPORATE OFFICE CAUVERY BHAVAN BENGALURU – 560 009

¶15

THE DIRECTOR (A & HR ) KPTCL

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:5779 WP No. 29231 of 2023

¶17

CAUVERY BHAVAN

¶18

BENGALURU - 560 009

¶19

SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELE) RAMANAGARA CIRCLE BESCOM, 1^ST FLOOR TTMC BUILDING MYSORE ROAD ABOVE KENGERI SATELITE BUS STOP KENGERI, BENGALURU - 560 060

¶20

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE ) BESCOM KANAKAPURA DIVISION KURU PET, SANGAMA ROAD KANAKAPURA - 562 117

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT.RAKSHITA D.J, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 & R.2; SRI.B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R.3 & R.4)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DTD 07.07.2023 VIDE ANNX-D AND TO GRANT ONE ANNUAL INCREMENT FOR THE YEAR OF SERVICE RENDERED BY THE PETITIONER FROM 01.06.2017 TO 31.05.2018 TO PROPERLY FIX HIS BASIC PAY AND TO PAY ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL MONETARY/ RETIREMENT BENEFITS AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:5779 WP No. 29231 of 2023

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The writ petition is filed seeking mandamus against respondents to consider representation of the petitioner dated 07.07.2023 as per Annexure-D and to grant one annual increment for the year of service rendered by the petitioner from 01.06.2017 to 31.05.2018

¶28

and thereby fix his basic pay and to pay all the consequential monetary/retirement benefits.

¶29

The short point that falls for consideration before this Court is;

¶30

Whether respondents are bound to consider petitioner’s claim in regard to grant of one annual increment for having rendered service from 01.06.2017 to 31.05.2018 before attaining age of superannuation?

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for petitioner has

¶32

placed on record the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in batch of writ petitions i.e., W.P.No.11822/2019 and connected matters, which cover

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:5779 WP No. 29231 of 2023

¶34

the entire issue involved in the present case on hand. The petitioner has also placed on record the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.4193/2017 and also judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court confirming the Division Bench judgment in Civil Appeal No.2471/2023 (SLP (C) No.6185/2020).

¶35

The contention of the respondents that the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court is subjected

¶36

to review under Review Petition pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in batch of petitions is also subjected to an appeal before Division Bench and the same is pending consideration cannot be acceded to.

¶37

If Division Bench judgment granting one

¶38

annual increment for having completed one year of service is confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the issue involved in this case is no more res-integra . Merely because the review petition is filed by the respondents – Corporation,

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:5779 WP No. 29231 of 2023

¶40

that in itself will not constitute a bar for this Court to decide the petition in the light of the law laid down by the Division Bench in W.A No.4193/2017. Petitioner has rendered one year of service before attaining age of superannuation. The Division Bench, while examining identically placed employees, has held that employees are entitled to get annual increment. The Division Bench was of the view that an increment is an incidence of an employment and an employee gets an increment by working full year and drawing full salary.

¶41

Respondents categorical denial of the

¶42

petitioner rightful claim solely on the basis of retirement status is legally untenable and egregiously undermines the spirit and intent of pertinent statutory provisions. The entitlement to the additional increment is irrevocably tied to the length of service rendered beyond prescribed period in terms of Regulation 40(1) of the board before superannuation and thus remains unaffected by petitioner’s retirement. To hold otherwise would

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:5779 WP No. 29231 of 2023

¶44

perpetuate an unjustifiable deprivation of petitioner’s rightful entitlements and contravenes the over arching principles of equity and fairness governing employment relations. All these complex issues are meticulously examined by the Division Bench and the direction was issued to respondent – Corporation to grant one annual increment. The reasons and findings recorded by the Division Bench in W.A.No.4193/2017 are affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2471/2023 (SLP No.6185/2020).

¶45

In the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench and confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner has a legal right to claim one annual increment in terms of Regulation 40(1) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees’ Service Regulations. The respondent – Corporation is liable to grant one increment in terms of the above said Rule. Therefore, this is a fit case to issue mandamus.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:5779 WP No. 29231 of 2023

¶48

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;

¶49

ORDER

¶50

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶51

(ii) The respondents – Corporation are hereby directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 07.07.2023 as per Annexure –D bearing in mind the law laid down by the Division Bench in W.A.No.4193/2017 and confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2471/2023 (SLP (C) No.6185/2020).

¶52

(iii) This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶53

(iv) Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

NBM

¶56

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

V Nagaraja v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V Nagaraja v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Antoni D Cunha @ Danny Vs the State of Karnataka

Manappuram Finance Ltd., Vs the State of Karnataka

M N Subramanya Swamy Vs State of Karnataka

Umeshaiah Vs the Managing Director Kptcl

Dr. Neema Gnanadev Vs Bangalore University

Chetan Garga Vs Smt. Deena Nagesh