Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2702 OF 2023
Karnataka Power Transmission ...Appellant(s)
Corporation Limited & Ors.
Versus
Sri. B. G. Manamohana …Respondent(s)
Priyanka & Ors.
J U D G M E N T
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
the High Court has dismissed the said appeal
Digitally signed by
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