Dismissed¶¶42

P. Shanmugam, v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC23 Feb 2026WA/1135/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; WA No. 1135 of 2024 (S-RES); intra-court writ appeal under S. 4, Karnataka High Court Act; KPTCL service matter; salary re-fixation with effect from 01.04.1985; earlier rejection in W.P. No.41714/2013 attained finality; fresh representation dated 02.11.2022 barred; appeal dismissed; coram D K Singh and S Rachaiah JJ; decided 23.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Once the petitioner's right in respect of re-fixation of salary with effect from 01.04.1985 was rejected in Writ Petition No.41714/2013 and that order had attained finality, there was no occasion for him to agitate the same issue by filing a fresh representation dated 02.11.2022. ¶¶41

P. Shanmugam, Vs the Managing Director — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:11169-DB WA No. 1135 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO. 1135 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

P. SHANMUGAM,

¶11

S/O LATE H M PATTACHAR,

¶12

AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/AT 1241, HOSOUR MARRAMMA BADAVANE, HUNUSURU TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 105.

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

(BY SRI. KALYAN R, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR (SERVICES) KPTCL, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 01.

¶18

THE DIRECTOR (HRD) KPTCL, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 01.

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:11169-DB WA No. 1135 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELEC.) O AND M CIRCLE, KUVEMPU NAGARA MYSORE – 571 105.

¶22

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC.) O AND M DIVISION, HUNSUR DIVISION, HUNSUR, MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 105.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R2; R3 & R4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶25

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15/03/2024 IN WP NO.21960/23 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND ETC.,

¶26

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:11169-DB WA No. 1135 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶33

The present intra-court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 15.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.21960/2023, preferred by the appellant/petitioner.

¶34

The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.41714/2013, which was disposed of with following observations made in paragraph 6 of the order:-

¶35

“6. Upon careful consideration of the facts presented, the petitioner's contention for salary re-fixation from 01.01.1998 cannot be considered in the light of concession made by respondent No.2/company in earlier round of litigation. If the petitioner's representation in previous case implied a limitation on the period for salary re-fixation, the principle of estoppel will prevail the petitioner from asserting a different position. The respondent No.2/company initially conceded to petitioner's request but limited the re-fixation period to three years prior to petitioner's retirement in 2004. This Court taking cognizance of the statement made by the parties, allowed this limited re-fixation and respondent No.2/company calculated and paid the difference amount to the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner having received this payment could not have submitted a fresh representation to respondent No.2 contending that he is entitled to salary re-fixation from 01.01.1998.”

¶36

The petitioner had submitted a fresh representation seeking re-fixation of his salary with effect from

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:11169-DB WA No. 1135 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

01.04.1985 instead of 01.04.1986. Similar prayer came

¶41

to be rejected by this Court in Writ Petition No.41714/2013. Once the petitioner’s right in respect of re-fixation of salary with effect from 01.04.1985 was rejected and that order had attained finality, there was no occasion for the petitioner to agitate the same issue by filing a fresh representation dated 02.11.2022. Therefore, considering the said fact, learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. We find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶42

The writ appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

¶43

Pending application does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of.

¶44

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶45

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶46

Bss List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

P. Shanmugam, v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Shanmugam, v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. L Shivarudraiah Vs Karnataka Lokayukta

Kumara N Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Kalyani Logistics Vs Canara Bank

Mr T Rama Rao Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

Munikrishnappa Vs the Assistant Commissioner

The Government of India Vs Smt Gopi