Karnataka High Court
WA/261/2024 of KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED Vs SRI NAGARAJA K N on 30 June 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:32452-DB WA No. 259 of 2024 C/W WA No. 261 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 259 OF 2024 (S-RES) C/W WRIT APPEAL NO. 261 OF
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT APPEAL NO. 259 OF 2024 (S-RES)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 261 OF 2024 (S-RES)
IN WA No. 259/2024
BETWEEN:
1.
THE GENERAL MANAGER A & HR,
BESCOM, CORPORATION OFFICE,
K.R CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2.
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BESCOM, SOUTH DIVISION,
27TH CROSS, 27TH MAIN,
BANASHANKARI,
BENGALURU - 560 017.
3.
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BESCOM, 15TH SOUTH SUB DIVISION,
JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 070.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SWAMINI GANESHAN MOHANAMBAL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SANDEEP S PATIL., ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
REKHA R
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
HC-KAR
AND:
1.
SRI. NAGARAJA K.N.,
S/O NARASIMME GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/O AT NO.124
THURAHALLI COLONY,
SUBRAMANYAPURA POST,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGLAURU - 560 061.
2.
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES
ACT 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT:2ND FLOOR,
KAVERI BHAVAN,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
(REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR)
3.
THE DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION
ADN HUMAN RESOURCES KPTCL,
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. THILAKRAJ S.V, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. B.S. SHRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW
THIS WRIT APPEAL, SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT PASSED IN
WP NO.15571/2022 DATED:21.12.2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY
DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.1, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
HC-KAR
IN WA NO. 261/2024
BETWEEN:
1.
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
CAUVERI BHAVAN,
K.S. ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 009.
2.
THE DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION
AND HUMAN RESOURCES,
K.P.T.C.L., CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. B.S. SHRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SANJEEV B.L., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. NAGARAJA K.N.,
S/O NARASIMME GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/O NO.124,
THURAHALLI COLONY,
SUBRAMANYAPURA POST,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU - 560 061.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. THILAKRAJ S.V., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:21.12.2023 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.15571/2022 (S-RES)
AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SAID WP IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
HC-KAR
THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present intra-Court appeals have been filed impugning the Order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.15571/2022.
2. The Writ Court vide impugned order, quashed the Communications dated 01.07.2022 and 11.07.2022 (Annexures-N1 & N2 respectively) wherein the claim of the respondent workman for being appointed as a Probationary Mazdoor was refused.
3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Writ Court.
4. The petitioner has been working in the appellant BESCOM since 2001 at the 9th Sub-division. Thereafter, the appellant BESCOM refused to convert the services of the
HC-KAR
petitioner into a Probationary Mazdoor as per Government Order dated 25.02.2004, because the name of the petitioner was not found in the Seniority list. However, in the communication dated 05.12.2008, the appellant has admitted the fact that the petitioner's name was wrongly omitted in the Seniority list. Once the BESCOM has taken a policy decision to convert all Temporary Gangmen who had been working in their establishment prior to 01.04.2003 and had rendered 6 years of service, it was imperative for the BESCOM to extend the same benefit to the petitioner.
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working since 2001 and had completed many number of years of service and not only 6 years, therefore his services were required to be converted as a Probationary Mazdoor. The Writ Court has therefore quashed the impugned Communications dated 01.07.2022 and 11.07.2022, whereby the petitioner's claim for being appointed as a Probationary Mazdoor was refused. We find no substance in the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the petitioner ought to have completed 6 years of service before 01.04.2003, which
HC-KAR
is not the mandate of the Government order dated 25.02.2004. The mandate was that, the employee must have been working in the establishment prior to 01.04.2003 and should have completed 6 years of service to be converted as a Probationary Mazdoor.
6. As seen from the record, especially Annexure-L1, the appellant - Authorities themselves have passed an order on 10.11.2016, converting two persons from Temporary Gangmen to a Probationary Mazdoor, who were appointed on 02.01.2003, which was much later than the appointment of the petitioner herein. In the case of the petitioner, he was appointed much prior to them i.e., in the year 2001. Denying the same benefit to the petitioner who was appointed earlier to two Gangmen who were appointed on 02.01.2003 is nothing but arbitrary and illegal exercise of the powers.
7. We find no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Writ Court. Both the appeals lack merit and substance. We therefore, dismiss the appeals. However, no order as to costs. In view of quashing of the Communications, the petitioner workman is entitled for all the
HC-KAR
benefits as Probationary Mazdoor from the date of Communications.
8. In view of dismissal of the appeals, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE
Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21 ct-vn