Allowed

Umeshaiah v. the Managing Director Kptcl

Karnataka HC12 Feb 2024WP/29232/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandatory direction to grant annual increment for service rendered prior to retirement. Court held that entitlement is tied to length of service under service regulations. Seven months time was allowed to implement the grant.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to grant one annual increment, consider representation, and pay consequential monetary/retirement benefits within three months.

Umeshaiah Vs the Managing Director Kptcl — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:5780 WP No. 29232 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.29232 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

UMESHAIAH S/O HONNASHAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RETIRED ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) R/AT 99, 1^ST FLOOR 2^ND MAIN, 3^RD CROSS OPP. RANGANATHAPURA MAGADI MAIN ROAD NEAR KHB LAYOUT-562 114 SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFITS IS NOT CLAIMED

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.SRINIVASA K, ADVOCATE)

¶10

Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KPTCL, CORPORATE OFFICE CAUVERY BHAVAN BENGALURU – 560009

¶13

THE DIRECTOR (A AND HR) KPTCL, CAUVERY BHAVAN BENGALURU – 560009

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:5780 WP No. 29232 of 2023

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DTD 04.07.2023 VIDE ANNX-D AND TO GRANT ONE ANNUAL INCREMENT FOR THE YEAR OF SERVICE RENDERED BY THE PETITIONER FROM 01.07.2022 TO 30.06.2023 TO PROPERLY FIX HIS BASIC PAY AND TO PAY ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL MONETARY/ RETIREMENT BENEFITS AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The writ petition is filed seeking mandamus

¶22

against respondents to consider representation of the petitioner dated 04.07.2023 as per Annexure-D and to grant one annual increment for the year of service rendered by the petitioner from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2023 and thereby fix his basic pay and to pay all the consequential monetary/retirement benefits.

¶23

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

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:5780 WP No. 29232 of 2023

¶25

W hether respondents are bound to consider petitioner’s claim in regard to grant of one annual increment for having rendered service from 01.07.2022 to 30.06.2023 before attaining age of superannuation?

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for petitioner has

¶27

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

¶28

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).

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:5780 WP No. 29232 of 2023

¶32

an appeal before Division Bench and the same is pending

¶33

consideration cannot be acceded to.

¶34

If Division Bench judgment granting one

¶35

annual increment for having completed one year of service is affirmed 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 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 employment and an employee gets an increment by working full year and drawing full salary.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:5780 WP No. 29232 of 2023

¶38

Respondents categorical denial of the

¶39

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

¶40

in terms of Regulation 40(1) of the board before superannuation and thus remains unaffected by petitioner’s retirement. To hold otherwise would 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 the respondents – 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 (C) No.6185/2020).

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:5780 WP No. 29232 of 2023

¶43

In the light of the law laid down by the 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 respondents – Corporation is liable to grant one increment in terms of the above said Rule. Therefore, this is a fit case to issue mandamus.

¶44

Accordingly, the Court proceeds to pass the

¶45

following;

¶46

ORDER

¶47

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶48

(ii) The respondents – Corporation is hereby directed to consider representation of the petitioner dated 04.07.2023 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

¶49