KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS. versus SRI. B. G. MANAMOHANA PRIYANKA & ORS. on 28 April 2023

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnatakaat Bengaluru in Writ Appeal No. 698/2020, by which, the Division Benchof the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by theappellant(s) herein and has affirmed the judgment and order passed bythe learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4667/2015, by which thelearned Single Judge directed payment of revised pay scales to the originalwrit petitioners at the rate of Rs. 9,745/- basic pay per month with effectfrom the date they entered into service, the Karnataka PowerTransmission Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as thecorporation) & Ors. have preferred the present appeal.

2. That the original writ petitioners – respondents herein wereappointed as “Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical)” in the appellant– corporation on 06.10.2007. That their pay scale was Rs. 9,470 - 20,470/- per month. That the appellant – corporation issued a D.O./order dated27.09.2006 revising the pay scales with effect from 01.04.2003.

2.1 That thereafter, a further D.O./order was issued whichprovided that with effect from 01.04.2003 by considering the hard workof the employees to consider pay hike by 2%. It further provided thatwhile sanctioning 2% hike in pay appropriate target may be fixed andsanction may be obtained from the management. D.O./order dated02.06.2008 was issued granting the approval for revision of pay scalesby 12% (10+2%) effecting from 01.04.2003. It further provided thatfrom 01.04.2009, the differential amount towards 2% pay revision maybe released after achieving the performance targets by the concernedofficers. As the original writ petitioners were appointed in the year 2007,they were not granted the benefit of additional 2% pay revision andtherefore, they filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge.Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed to re-fixtheir pay while extending revision of pay i.e., 10+2% = 12% which willbe Rs. 9,745/- basic to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer(Electrical). The benefit has been granted from the date of theirappointment. The learned Single Judge also awarded the interest @ 8%on the arrears. The order passed by the learned Single Judge was thesubject matter of appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ABy the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench has partlyallowed the appeal to the extent deleting the direction of the learnedSingle Judge to pay interest on the arrears amount at 8% per annumfrom 04.11.2020 till realization. However, the Division Bench hasconfirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge directing to add12% in the basic pay and consequently, to revise the pay accordingly.B

2.2 The impugned judgment and order passed by the DivisionBench of the High Court is the subject matter of present appeal.

3. Heard Shri K.M. Nataraj, learned ASG appearing on behalf ofthe appellant(s) and Shri P.V. Surendranath, learned Senior AdvocateCappearing on behalf of the respondents.

3.1 Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespective parties and having gone through the relevant D.O./orders,more particularly, D.O./orders dated 27.09.2006 and 02.06.2008, theoriginal writ petitioners though were appointed in the year 2007 shall beDentitled to the benefit of revision of pay adding 12% in addition to theexisting pay to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical).There is no dispute with respect to the addition of 10%. However, thedispute is with respect to further addition of 2%. The case on behalf ofthe appellant that as the original writ petitioners were appointed in theyear 2007 and thereafter, there were revision of pay and in fact theyEwere to get the pay in the basic pay scale, they shall not be entitled to theadditional 2% has no substance. On conjoint reading of D.O./ordersdated 27.09.2006 and 02.06.2008, all those employees subject to fulfilmentof the conditions mentioned in D.O./order dated 02.06.2008 shall beentitled to the additional 2% in addition to the existing pay, irrespectiveFwhether as on 01.04.2003 they were in service or not. Therefore, thecase on behalf of the appellant(s) that as they were not appointed as on01.04.2003 and they were appointed subsequently in the year 2007 and,therefore, not entitled to the additional 2% without doing the hard workhas no substance. However, at the same time, Shri Nataraj, learnedASG appearing on behalf of the appellant(s) is justified in making theGsubmission that the original writ petitioners shall not be entitled to theadditional 2% automatically and that too from the date of their initialappointment. It is to be noted that even as per D.O./order dated02.06.2008 while sanctioning 2% hike in pay appropriate target wasrequired to be fixed and accordingly, their sanction from the managementHfor the said proposal was required to be obtained. From 01.04.2009, the differential amount towards 2% pay revision was required to be releasedafter achieving the performance targets by the concerned officers andtheir first appraisal was to be conducted in April, 2009 and the secondappraisal was to be conducted in April, 2010. Therefore, as such thelearned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court havematerially erred in directing to revise the pay scale by adding 2% to thebasic pay automatically that too from the date of their appointment. It isrequired to be noted that in the first year all the writ petitioners wereappointed as probationers and as per the Rules, as probationers theywere to be put in the minimum basic pay scale which at the relevanttime was Rs. 9,470/-

4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, thepresent appeal succeeds in part. The order passed by the learned SingleJudge as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the DivisionBench of the High Court directing to pay additional 2% in addition to theexisting pay to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) fromthe date of their initial appointment is/are hereby quashed and set aside.It is observed and directed that the original writ petitioners shall be entitledto the additional 2% in addition to the existing pay to the post of AssistantExecutive Engineer (Electrical), however, subject to the conditions asmentioned in the D.O./order dated 02.06.2008, namely, subject toachieving the performance targets by the concerned officers.

With this modification, the present appeal stands disposed of.

Divya Pandey(Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri and Roopanshi Virang, LCRAs)

Appeal disposed of.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H