Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited vs Sri. B.G. Manamohana Priyanka

Karnataka Power Transmission ...Appellant(s) Corporation Limited & Ors.

Versus

Sri. B. G. Manamohana …Respondent(s) Priyanka & Ors.

JUDGMENT

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the

impugned judgment and order passed by the

Division Bench of the High Court of

Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Appeal No.

698/2020, by which, the Division Bench of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by the High Court has dismissed the said appeal Neetu Sachdeva Date: 2023.04.28 16:27:29 IST Reason: Page 1 of 11 preferred by the appellant(s) herein and has

affirmed the judgment and order passed by

the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.

4667/2015, by which the learned Single

Judge directed payment of revised pay scales

to the original writ petitioners at the rate of

Rs. 9,745/- basic pay per month with effect

from the date they entered into service, the

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation

Limited (hereinafter referred to as the

corporation) & Ors. have preferred the

present appeal.

2. That the original writ petitioners –

respondents herein were appointed as

“Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical)” in

the appellant – corporation on 06.10.2007.

That their pay scale was Rs. 9,470 - 20,470/-

Page 2 of 11 per month. That the appellant – corporation

issued a D.O./order dated 27.09.2006

revising the pay scales with effect from

01.04.2003.

2.1 That thereafter, a further D.O./order was

issued which provided that with effect from

01.04.2003 by considering the hard work of

the employees to consider pay hike by 2%. It

further provided that while sanctioning 2%

hike in pay appropriate target may be fixed

and sanction may be obtained from the

management. D.O./order dated 02.06.2008

was issued granting the approval for revision

of pay scales by 12% (10+2%) effecting from

01.04.2003. It further provided that from

01.04.2009, the differential amount towards

2% pay revision may be released after

Page 3 of 11 achieving the performance targets by the

concerned officers. As the original writ

petitioners were appointed in the year 2007,

they were not granted the benefit of

additional 2% pay revision and therefore, they

filed the writ petition before the learned

Single Judge. Learned Single Judge allowed

the writ petition and directed to re-fix their

pay while extending revision of pay i.e.,

10+2% = 12% which will be Rs. 9,745/- basic

to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer

(Electrical). The benefit has been granted

from the date of their appointment. The

learned Single Judge also awarded the

interest @ 8% on the arrears. The order

passed by the learned Single Judge was the

subject matter of appeal before the Division

Bench of the High Court. By the impugned

Page 4 of 11 judgment and order, the Division Bench has

partly allowed the appeal to the extent

deleting the direction of the learned Single

Judge to pay interest on the arrears amount

at 8% per annum from 04.11.2020 till

realization. However, the Division Bench has

confirmed the order passed by the learned

Single Judge directing to add 12% in the

basic pay and consequently, to revise the pay

accordingly.

2.2 The impugned judgment and order passed by

the Division Bench of the High Court is the

subject matter of present appeal.

3. Heard Shri K.M. Nataraj, learned ASG

appearing on behalf of the appellant(s) and

Shri P.V. Surendranath, learned Senior

Page 5 of 11 Advocate appearing on behalf of the

respondents.

3.1 Having heard learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the respective parties and having

gone through the relevant D.O./orders, more

particularly, D.O./orders dated 27.09.2006

and 02.06.2008, the original writ petitioners

though were appointed in the year 2007 shall

be entitled to the benefit of revision of pay

adding 12% in addition to the existing pay to

the post of Assistant Executive Engineer

(Electrical). There is no dispute with respect

to the addition of 10%. However, the dispute

is with respect to further addition of 2%. The

case on behalf of the appellant that as the

original writ petitioners were appointed in the

year 2007 and thereafter, there were revision

Page 6 of 11 of pay and in fact they were to get the pay in

the basic pay scale, they shall not be entitled

to the additional 2% has no substance. On

conjoint reading of D.O./orders dated

27.09.2006 and 02.06.2008, all those

employees subject to fulfilment of the

conditions mentioned in D.O./order dated

02.06.2008 shall be entitled to the additional

2% in addition to the existing pay,

irrespective whether as on 01.04.2003 they

were in service or not. Therefore, the case on

behalf of the appellant(s) that as they were

not appointed as on 01.04.2003 and they

were appointed subsequently in the year

2007 and, therefore, not entitled to the

additional 2% without doing the hard work

has no substance. However, at the same time,

Shri Nataraj, learned ASG appearing on

Page 7 of 11 behalf of the appellant(s) is justified in

making the submission that the original writ

petitioners shall not be entitled to the

additional 2% automatically and that too

from the date of their initial appointment. It is

to be noted that even as per D.O./order dated

02.06.2008 while sanctioning 2% hike in pay

appropriate target was required to be fixed

and accordingly, their sanction from the

management for the said proposal was

required to be obtained. From 01.04.2009,

the differential amount towards 2% pay

revision was required to be released after

achieving the performance targets by the

concerned officers and their first appraisal

was to be conducted in April, 2009 and the

second appraisal was to be conducted in

April, 2010. Therefore, as such the learned

Page 8 of 11 Single Judge and the Division Bench of the

High Court have materially erred in directing

to revise the pay scale by adding 2% to the

basic pay automatically that too from the date

of their appointment. It is required to be

noted that in the first year all the writ

petitioners were appointed as probationers

and as per the Rules, as probationers they

were to be put in the minimum basic pay

scale which at the relevant time was Rs.

9,470/-

4. In view of the above and for the reasons

stated above, the present appeal succeeds in

part. The order passed by the learned Single

Judge as well as the impugned judgment and

order passed by the Division Bench of the

High Court directing to pay additional 2% in

Page 9 of 11 addition to the existing pay to the post of

Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) from

the date of their initial appointment is/are

hereby quashed and set aside. It is observed

and directed that the original writ petitioners

shall be entitled to the additional 2% in

addition to the existing pay to the post of

Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical),

however, subject to the conditions as

mentioned in the D.O./order dated

02.06.2008, namely, subject to achieving the

performance targets by the concerned

officers.

With this modification, the present appeal

stands disposed of.

………………………………….J.

Page 10 of 11 [M.R. SHAH]

………………………………….J. [C.T. RAVIKUMAR] NEW DELHI;

APRIL 28, 2023

Page 11 of 11