KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED vs KEB ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION

- 1 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA

WRIT APPEAL NO. 1252 OF 2023 (S-RES)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1240 OF 2023 (S-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1254 OF 2023 (S-RES)

IN WA No. 1252/2023





BETWEEN:

1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED
CAUVERY BHAVAN
K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009

2. THE DIRECTOR (A AND HR)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED
ST
1 FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN
K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009

3.
THE DIRECTOR (FINANCE)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED
CAUVERY BHAVAN
K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009
…APPELLANTS







Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI: S S NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT: SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE)

- 2 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


AND:

1. FAIROZA BEGUM BELGAUM
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
KPTCL, TL AND SS DIVISION
HOODY, BENGALURU-560 048

2. CHANDRIKA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
KPTCL, SLDC, A.R.CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560 009

3. SUMANA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(ELE)
KPTCL, SCADA, A.R.CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560 009

4. AMBIKA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
TR(M), BRAZ, KPTCL
G.K.V.K COMPOUND
BENGALURU-560 024

5. SHAILASREE SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
KPTCL, SCADA, SLDC
A.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 009

6. BHANU PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(ELE)
RD
3 FLOOR, BESCOM, 302
K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001

7.
G. NEELIMA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(ELE)

- 3 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


SCADA, EMS KPTCL
A.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 009

8. B.S. BASAVARAJAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(ELE)
BESCOM VIGILANCE
RAJAJINAGAR, CRESCENT ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001

9. B.G. VIJAYA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(ELE)
KPTCL RT ADDITIONAL SUB-DIVISION
W.C.ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 010

…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: ANIL KUMAR R, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R6, R8 & R9;
SRI: PUTTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE/CR FOR R2, R5 & R7;
SRI: YASHODHAR HEGDE AND
SRI: MANU K, ADVOCATES FOR R3 & R4)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 28.08.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN W.P.No.32866/2017 (S-RES) AND CONSEQUENTLY
DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

IN WA NO. 1240/2023
BETWEEN:
1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES
ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS
CORPORATE OFFICE AT
CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD
BENGALURU-560 009

- 4 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR. (ADMN AND HR )
VIJAY B.P

2. THE DIRECTOR (A AND HR )
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED
CORPORATE OFFICE
CAUVERY BHAVAN
K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU -560 009

3.
KPTCL AND ESCOMs PENSION AND
GRATUITY TRUST
CAUVERY BHAVAN
K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN
AND DIRECTOR OF FINANCE, KPTCL

...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI: S S NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT: SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KEB ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION
REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES
REGISTRATION ACT
S.J.M.BUILDING
NO.28, RACE COURSE CROSS ROAD
ANAND RAO CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560 009
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY
S. PRAKASH KUMAR

2. PRASHANTH PAI M.J
S/O SRI. M. JANARDHAN PAI
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE.)
HT RATING SUB-DIVISION
MESCOM, BANTWAL-574 211

- 5 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


3.
NAGABHUSHAN N.G
S/O GURUDEV K
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE.)
BESCOM, C2 SUB-DIVISION
MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003

4. DILEEP K.V.
S/O LATE K.N.V.GUPTA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE.)
RT SUB-DIVISION, KPTCL
HIRIYUR CHELLAKERE ROAD
HIRIYUR-577 599

5. SUDHEER R
S/O LATE RAMU N
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE.)
RT SUB-DIVISION, KPTCL
F.T.S COMPOUND
MYSURU-570 007

6.
LAKSHMIDHARA PRABHU T
S/O LATE KAMALAKSHA PRABHU T
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE.)
RT SUB-DIVISION, KPTCL
RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 010

7. R. MANJUNATHA
S/O RAMAIAH T
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
O AND M DIVISION
BESCOM, PEENYA
BENGALURU-560 058

- 6 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


8.
JAYARAMA H
S/O HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
OFFICE TRANSMISSION ZONE
KPTCL, TUMKUR-572 102

9. GOPALA KRISHNA H
S/O HANUMAN KARIYAPPA H
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
NITTUR 220/110 K V
R/S NITTUR
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 223

10. GULZAR AHMED A. MULLA
S/O ABDULLA D. MULLA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE.,)
AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANT TO
MANAGING DIRECTOR, HESCOM
NAVANAGAR
HUBBALLI-560 025

11.
DEEPAK D
S/O DHANPAL
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE.)
220 KV STATION
NEAR HINDALCO FACTORY
KPTCL, BELAGAVI-590 010

12. VENKOBA RAO K
S/O BHEEMA RAO K
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE.)
LT RATING SUB-DIVISION
GESCOM, DAM ROAD
HOSPET-583 201

- 7 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


13.
MANJUNATH B. TINGARIKAR
S/O BASAPPA TINGARIKAR
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE.)
O AND M, RURAL SUB-DIVISION
HESCOM
DHARWAD-580 004

14. BHIMAPPA K. HIPPARAGI
S/O KASHEERAY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE.)
O AND M DIVISION, HESCOM
JAMAKHANDI
BAGALKOT DISTRICT-567 301

15. GURURAJ V. SAMPANNAVAR
S/O VEERABHADRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE.)
O AND M SUB-DIVISION
HESCOM, AIGALI
ATHANI TALUK
BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591 248

16. CHANDRASHEKHA BOLEGAON
S/O HANAMANTH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELE.)
OFFICE SECTION
HESCOM
DEVAR HIPPARAGI-586 115

17.
PURUSHOTHAMA A.S
S/O SHIVAPRASAD A.H
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE.)
220 KV SUB-STATION, NITTUR
GUBBI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 223

- 8 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


18.
VEERESH U
S/O BASAPPA U
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
400 KV MAJOR WORKS SUB-DIVISION
KPTCL, BALLARI-583 103

19. RAVI ASUTI
S/O LINGA BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE.)
220 KV R/S ANCHEPALYA
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 130

20. MANOHAR SHETTY
S/O K. SHENAPPA SHETTY KUDIBAIL
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
KRODHA BAILOR
SHANKARANARAYANA VILLAGE
KUNDAPURA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT-576 227

21. RAJESH KAMBLEKAR
S/O JEEVAPPA KAMBLEKAR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINNER (ELE.)
DIVISIONAL WORK UNIT
H.NO.13-1-266/267
SHREE KRISHNA NILAYA
PARAS VATIKA LAYOUT
RAICHUR-584 135

22.
CHANDRASHEKARA POOJARY
S/O THYAMPA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
THADENGALA HOUSE
KULALA POST
KOLNADU VILLAGE
BANTWALA TALUK
DAKSHINA KANNDA-574 323

- 9 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


23.
ABHISHEK B.S
S/O SHREEPALIAH B
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE.)
BILALGODE ESTATE
SAMSE POST (VIA KALASA)
MUDIGERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 132

24.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
ENERGY DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: VIJAYKUMAR V B, ADVOCATE/CR FOR R1 AND R8;
SRI: MOHAN C, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R3 TO R5, R6, R7,
R9 TO R18, R19, R20 TO R23
SRI: G S ARUNA, HCGP FOR R24)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 28/08/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P NO.9774/2016 AND CONSEQUENTLY
DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION.
IN WA NO. 1254/2023
BETWEEN:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED
CORPORATE OFFICE
CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD
BENGALURU-560 009

2. THE DIRECTOR (A AND HR)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED
CORPORATE OFFICE

- 10 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


CAUVERY BHAVAN
K.G.ROAD
BENGALURU-560 009

3.
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LIMITED
CORPORATE OFFICE
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
NEAR K.R. CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560 001

4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, CESCOM
CORPORATE OFFICE,
ND
NO.29, VIJAYANAGAR 2 STAGE
HINAKAL, MYSURU-570 017

5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LIMITED
CORPORATE OFFICE
NAVANAGAR, P.B. ROAD
HUBBALLI-580 025

6. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED
CORPORATE OFFICE
BIJAI KAVOUR ROAD, BIJAI
MANGALURU-575 004

7. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
GULBARGA ELECTRICTIY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED
CORPORATE OFFICE
STATION ROAD
KALABURGI-585 102
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI: S S NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT: SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE)

- 11 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


AND:
1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION EMPLOYEES' UNION
(R)- 659, KPTCL COMPOUND
A STATION, S.C. ROAD
ANAND RAO CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560 009
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY

2.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIKASA SOUDHA
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALRUU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY THE
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF POWER AND ENERGY

...RESPONDENTS
(BY PROF: RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI: K SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE/CR FOR R1;
SRI: G S ARUNA, HCGP FOR R2)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 28.08.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P No.13498/2021 (S-RES) AND
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THESE APPEALS, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 31.08.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY,
T.P.VIVEKANANDA J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA

- 12 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


COMMON CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA)

PLEADINGS AND BACKGROUND OF THE LIS:

Writ Appeal No. 1240 of 2023 arises out of the order
passed in Writ Petition No.9774 of 2016. The writ petitioners
were all appointed as Assistant Engineers on contract basis,
pursuant to Notification dated 07.05.2003 issued by Karnataka
Electricity Board (KEB), now named as Karnataka Power
Transmission Corporation Ltd., (KPTCL). Petitioner No.1 is the
Association of Engineers. By Resolution dated 16.03.2007 at
Annexure-C, the Board of the appellant approved the
appointment of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) and Junior
Engineers (Electrical) on permanent basis subject to terms and
conditions stipulated in the order of appointment.

2. The relevant portion of the Resolution dated
16.03.2007 of Board of the appellant is extracted herein below
for ready reference:
"After detailed deliberations, the Board resolved
to appoint the Contract Assistant Engineers (Elec.) and
Contract Junior Engineers (Elec.) appointed against
Employment Notification No.KPTCL/B16/2834/1999-
2000 (II) dated 07.05.2003 on a permanent basis and
in the time scale of Assistant Engineers and Junior

- 13 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


Engineers prospectively from the date of issue of the
appointment orders."

3. Pursuant to the said Resolution, Writ
Petitioners/respondent Nos.2 to 23 herein were issued with
appointment orders dated 30.04.2007. One such appointment
order has been placed on record as Annexure-H. Condition
Nos.2 and 5 of the order of appointment reads as follows:

"2. Your service on contract basis shall not
count for any purpose including for fixing salary,
seniority, promotion or pension.
5. You are not entitled to the pension as per
the existing pension Rules. However, you will be
covered under the contributory pension scheme which is
under consideration for adoption by KPTCL w.e.f.
01.04.2006."

4. Clause-7 of the conditions of letter of appointment
requires execution of an agreement in the prescribed proforma
on a stamp paper of value of Rs.100/-. One such agreement
entered into by the appellant and the employee is part of the
record at Annexure-J. Clause-4 of the said agreement is
concerning the service conditions, which reads as follows:
"4. My appointment and continuance shall be
subject to the KEB Employees Service Regulation, KEB

- 14 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, Employees
(Probation) Regulations and Employees (Seniority)
Regulations, KEB Employees (Classification, Disciplinary
Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987 and KEB
Employees Service (Conduct Rules) 1988, as amended
from time to time and other Rules and Regulations
framed and made applicable from time to time."

5. Government Order dated 31.03.2006 New Defined
Contributory Pension Scheme (NPS) was introduced and made
it mandatory to all new recruits to the services of State
Government joining on or after 01.04.2006. In terms of NPS,
the monthly contribution of the employees shall be 10% of the
basic pay and dearness allowance to be paid by the employee
and matched by the State Government in equal proportion.

6. The appellant - KPTCL vide order dated 05.07.2007
accorded approval for implementing New Defined Contributory
Pension Scheme w.e.f. 01.04.2006 for new entrants to
KPTCL/BESCOM service as follows:
"The new defined contributory pension scheme
shall be mandatory to all new recruits to KPTCL/ESCOMs
service joint on or after 1.4.2006. The monthly
contribution shall be 10% of the Basic Pay & Dearness
Allowance thereon to be paid by the employee and
matched by KPTCL/ESCOMs in equal proportion.
However, there shall be no contribution from

- 15 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


KPTCL/ESCOMs in respect of individuals who are not
KPTCL/ESCOMs employees."
7. After 7 years from the date of
absorption/Regularization of the contract Assistant Engineers
on 30.04.2007, some of the respondents/writ petitioners
submitted the representation dated 27.09.2014 requesting to
consider their case under old pension scheme, contending that
the New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme was brought
into effect from 01.04.2006 for new recruits who have joined
after 01.04.2006, however, they are already in the services of
the appellant as contract Assistant Engineers since November
2003. Therefore, the word “newly recruited” stipulated in the
order dated 01.04.2006 or 30.04.2007 cannot be construed
and applied to their cases. In addition, it is stated that identical
questions have been decided by the High Court of Madras in
Writ Petition (MD) No.11221 of 2010, Writ Petition No.25293 of
2010, Writ Petition No.8207 of 2011 and Writ Petition No.8206
of 2011 in respect of various departments, wherein, in identical
circumstances, though the employees were appointed on
consolidated pay before the implementation of New Defined
Contributory Pension Scheme, but were regularised after
coming into force (NPS) were considered under the old pension

- 16 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


scheme and therefore, they are also entitled for the similar
reliefs.
8. The representation of the writ petitioners have been
forwarded to appellant No.1, who in turn, communicated to
appellant No.2. Appellant No.2 had informed respondent No.1 -
Association through a detailed communication dated
30.01.2016, quoting the conditions stipulated in the order of
appointment, which has been culled out at paragraph 3 above.
Further pointed out that the entry of respondents - petitioners
into the services of the appellant - Corporation is only w.e.f.
30.04.2007 and therefore, the employees who are working on
contract basis from 2003 cannot be granted with the old
pension scheme.
9. The said communication was called in question in
Writ Petition No.9774 of 2016 on the ground that the New
Defined Contributory Pension Scheme cannot be made
applicable retrospectively to the petitioners with effect from
01.04.2006, and they are entitled to the Old Pension Scheme
prevailing prior to the impugned order dated 05.07.2007. The
appointment of the petitioners on contract basis was pursuant
to a valid recruitment Notification dated 07.05.2003. Since all

- 17 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


the writ petitioners were eligible to be appointed to the post of
Assistant Engineers were recruited to the said post after due
consideration of their eligibility. But for the ban on regular
recruitment, the writ petitioners would have been appointed on
a regular basis in the year 2003 itself. They were all appointed
as against the sanctioned vacant posts. Therefore, for all
practical purposes, their appointment in the year 2003 is to be
considered as a regular appointment. The writ petition was
opposed by the appellant – Management contending as follows:
i) The appointment of the writ petitioners in the year
2003 was purely on contract basis with a consolidated
Rs.
remuneration of 8,000/- per month and their appointment
was governed by the conditions of appointment order.
ii) The services of the writ petitioners has been
absorbed into the services of the appellant pursuant to the
decision of the Board on 16.03.2007, resolving to appoint them
on permanent basis subject to conditions indicated in the order
of appointment.
iii) The decision of the Board was called in question in
Writ Petition No.7425 of 2007 by certain Junior Engineers who

- 18 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


were already in the services of the appellant – Corporation
contending that on account of absorption of the contract
Assistant Engineers, their promotional avenue is blocked. While
disposing of the said writ petition, this Court has clarified that
the regularisation of the contract Assistant Engineers would not
affect the seniority of in-service candidates, since the
regularization cannot be with a retrospective effect. Therefore,
the petitioners cannot contend that their appointment for the
purpose of applying the pension scheme shall be reckoned from
the year 2003, when they were appointed on contract basis, is
not justified.
iv) In the order of appointment itself, the writ
petitioners were made known specifically that they are covered
under New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme, which is
under consideration for adoption w.e.f. 01.04.2006. Being
aware of the said condition, the respondents have accepted the
appointment and executed an agreement in the prescribed
proforma. Therefore, the writ petitioners cannot resile from the
understanding.
v) The Central Government and the State Government
have brought in the policy of implementation of New Pension

- 19 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


Scheme. The appellant- Corporation has also taken a policy
decision to adopt NPS w.e.f. 01.04.2006 on par with the service
conditions of the employees of State Government and Central
Government from the year 2007, accordingly the NPS has been
adopted.
vi) The petitioners have worked nearly 7 years from
the date of the absorption without demur and all these years
10% of the basic pay and DA has been deducted towards the
employee's contribution of the pension, which has been
matched by the Management and the appellant and the
petitioners did not raise any objection for deduction of 10% of
the basic pay and dearness allowances towards the employee's
contribution of the pension, cannot turn back after 7 to 8 years
and contend that the adoption of New Pension Scheme in
respect of the writ petitioners is illegal.
vii) The submission of the representation in the year
2014 and issuance of the endorsement – Annexure-R dated
30.01.2016 cannot become the cause of action for the
petitioners to file the writ petition in the year 2016. The writ
petition is hit by delay and latches. Filing of repeated

- 20 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


representations would not satisfy the requirement of
explanation of delay in approaching the Court.
viii) Reliance placed on Regulation 181(A) cannot be
pressed into service in the present case, since the said
Regulation is applicable only for temporary and permanent
employees. However, in the present case, the petitioners are
neither temporarily appointed nor appointed on permanent
basis. However, they were appointed on contract basis for a
fixed term. Therefore, their services cannot be equated either
with the temporary employees or the permanent employees.
10. The writ petition was amended by the petitioners
raising a further contention that they are not new entrants to
the services of the appellant and they were already in the
services from the year 2003. Therefore, the Resolution passed
by the appellant adopting the NPS in respect of the new
entrants cannot be made applicable to the case of the writ
petitioners.
11. The application for amendment having been
allowed, the appellants – respondents were permitted to file
additional statement of objections. Accordingly, the

- 21 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


respondents have filed additional statement of objections re-
iterating the earlier contention regarding the conditions
stipulated in the order of appointment with regard to the
applicability of NPS in respect of the employees who are
recruited on or after 01.04.2006. It was contented in the
additional statement of objections that, when the appointment
order stipulates certain conditions relating to the applicable
pension scheme, it is open for the employees either to accept
the order of appointment with the conditions stipulated therein
or to refuse the employment. After having accepted the
appointment with the conditions stipulated, the petitioners
cannot approbate and reprobate after 7 years of their
appointment.
12. Writ Appeal No.1252 of 2023 arises out of the Writ
Petition Nos.32866-32874 of 2017. These writ petitions were
filed by another set of Assistant Engineers who were also
appointed on contract basis in the year 2003. The contentions
urged in the said writ petitions, so also, in Writ Petition
No.9774 of 2016 are somewhat similar in nature, except the
contention regarding filing of writ petition by the Junior
Engineers who are already in service challenging the decision of

- 22 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


the appellant - Board regularising/absorbing the services of
contract Assistant Engineers into the service and order passed
in Writ Petition No.7425 of 2007 and Writ Appeal No. 2478 of
2010. The contentions urged by the appellant in the writ
petition are also identical.
13. Writ Appeal No.1254 of 2023 arises out of Writ
Petition No.13498 of 2021. This writ petition was filed by the
Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Employees Union.
The facts set out in the writ petition are that, upto the year
1998, the erstwhile KEB was appointing temporary lineman to
discharge the work in the cadre of Assistant lineman. The
separate Rules were framed for absorption of lineman.
Thereafter, the KEB started engaging the employees on
contract basis and they were designated as Gangmen. It is
stated that the employees who were working as Gangmen had
approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos.1271-1296 of 1997
seeking regularisation of their services. This Court had disposed
of the said writ petitions with a direction to KEB to give
preference to the services rendered by the Gangmen, while
making permanent appointments.

- 23 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


14. After establishment of KPTCL, the cases of
Gangmen was considered and they were converted as
Probationary Mazdoors. After obtaining approval from the State
Government on 25.02.2004, KPTCL had identified 7528
Gangmen and converted them into the cadre of Probationary
Mazdoors, who were subsequently absorbed as Junior lineman.
The said one time measure of absorption was in respect of
those Gangmen, who had completed 6 years of service as on
01.04.2003. Thereafter, vide order dated 28.04.2005, KPTCL
has accorded approval for conversion of Gangmen, who has
completed 6 years of continuous service as on 01.04.2003 as
Probationary Mazdoors. The said employees were absorbed into
the cadre of Junior lineman only after 01.04.2006 and in the
earlier writ petition, the KPTCL has contented that most of the
Gangmen have entered into service by the end of 23.10.2010.
15. The contention of the petitioner - Union in the said
writ petition was that the services of 7528 Gangmen have been
absorbed into the permanent cadre w.e.f. 25.02.2004 and
therefore, the said Gangmen who were working prior to their
absorption were also eligible for similar reliefs. While appointing
the Gangmen, all the requisite procedure for appointment has

- 24 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


been followed and thereafter, the appointment orders were
issued. Therefore, though the appointment was on temporary
basis, but it was preceded by proper selection process.
Petitioners have also relied upon Regulation 181(1) and 181(A)
of the Board Employee Service Regulation.
16. The appointment of Gangmen into the service of the
appellant- Corporation relates back to 01.04.2006 and
therefore, they cannot be brought under NPS. Only based on
the different date on which the employees were absorbed into
the service, the later absorbed employees cannot be
discriminated while applying the pension scheme.
17. Petitioners have relied upon the order passed by
this Court in Writ Petition No.11679 of 2011 and Writ Petition
No.55076 of 2015.
18. Writ Petition No.13498 of 2021 was opposed by the
appellant - Corporation contending that in terms of the order
dated 28.04.2005 approval was accorded for conversion of
some of the Gangmen who have completed 6 years of
continuous service in the Corporation as on 01.04.2005,
subject to certain terms and conditions.

- 25 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


19. The conversion of 7528 Gangmen to the
Probationary Mazdoors was done as per the provisions
contained in the KPTCL order dated 28.04.2005 in respect of
the said Gangmen who was working in KPTCL/BESCOM
continuously for 6 years as on 01.04.2005 and completing 6
years in the subsequent years remain subject to seniority,
suitability and verification of the eligibility of each of the
Gangmen. The Gangmen after conversion as Probationary
Mazdoors was absorbed into maintenance cadre of Junior
Linemen only after 01.07.2006. In view of the adoption of
policy of NPS, all the recruits of KPTCL/BESCOM joined on or
after 01.04.2006 were brought under NPS. The
Gangmen/Probationary Mazdoors who were absorbed to regular
services have signed agreement for their absorption very
recently, wherein, it is specifically mentioned that their
appointment is governed by the prevailing Rules and
Regulations of the Government and the said Rules and
Regulations were made applicable. After having accepted the
appointment, the conditions stipulated therein and working for
all these years cannot now contend that their cases will have to
be considered under old pension scheme.

- 26 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


20. All the aforesaid writ petitions were heard and
disposed of by allowing the writ petitions quashing the
endorsement dated 30.01.2016 at Annexure-H in Writ Petition
Nos.32866-32874 of 2017 and the endorsement dated
30.01.2016 at Annexure- R and the order dated 05.07.2007 at
Annexure-K in Writ Petition Nos.9774-96 of 2016. Learned
Single Judge further issued a writ of mandamus directing the
appellant - Corporation to apply the old pension scheme, which
was invoked as on the date of entry of the petitioners into
service through Notification dated 07.05.2003 and with all
consequential benefits including refund of contribution, if any,
deducted by the appellant - Corporation and general direction
has been issued to the appellant - Corporation to refund the
contribution in excess in terms of the observation made in the
body of the order.
21. While disposing of the writ petitions, the learned
Single Judge has negative the contention of the appellant -
Corporation that the writ petitioners entry into service shall be
reckoned only from 30.04.2007 and not from the date of their
appointment on contract basis in the year 2003. The learned
Single Judge also rejected the contention of the appellant that

- 27 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


the writ petitions are barred by delay and latches. The finding
of the learned single Judge is that, for the purpose of applying
the pension scheme, notwithstanding the fact that the services
of the employees have been absorbed/regularised on
30.04.2007, their entry into services w.e.f. 01.04.2003 shall be
taken into consideration.
22. To come to such a conclusion, the learned Single
Judge recorded a finding that the employees who were
appointed in the year 2003 as against substantive posts and
therefore, their entry into service cannot be from 2007 and
thus, the new pension scheme introduced on 01.04.2006
cannot be made applicable. Learned single Judge has accepted
the contention of the writ petitioners that their cases fall within
the mischief of Regulation 181(1) and 181(A) of the
Regulations.
23. The learned Single Judge further held that fixation
of cut-off date for applying the pension scheme to appellant -
Corporation has not acted fairly and reasonably. Therefore, the
writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
empowered to interfere with the fixation of the cut-off date. To
come to the aforesaid conclusion, the learned Single Judge has

- 28 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


relied upon and has accepted the reliance placed on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union
1
of India and another Vs K Punniyakoti , Union of India
2
and others Vs Tarsem Singh , Union of India Vs Ajay
3
Kumar and Others , Rushibhai Vs Bhavanagar Municipal
4
Corporation , The State of UP and others Vs Rajmathi
5
Singh and the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench in Writ
Petition No.11679 of 2011.
24. We have heard Sri S S Naganand, learned senior
counsel for Smt Sumana Naganand, learned counsel appearing
for the appellants in all the cases; Sri V B Vijaykumar, learned
counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 8, Sri Mohana C, learned
counsel for respondent Nos.2, 3 to 5, 6, 7, 9 to 18, 19, 20 to
23 and Sri G S Aruna, learned High Court Government Pleader
for respondent No.24 in Writ Appeal No.1240 of 2023; Sri R
Anil Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 6, 8 and 9,
Sri Puttegowda, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2, 5 and 7,
Sri Yashodhar Hegde and Sri K Manu, learned counsel for
respondent Nos.3 and 4 in Writ Appeal No.1252 of 2023; Sri

1
(2014) 2 CTC 777
2
(2008) 8 SCC 648
3
2008 SCC Online Delhi 763
4
2022 SCC Online SC 641
5
2022 SCC Online 1785

- 29 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


Prof Ravi Varma Kumar, learned senior counsel for Sri K
Srinivasa, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri G S
Aruna, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent
No.2 in Writ Appeal No.1254 of 2023 and perused the writ
appeal papers.
SUBMISSIONS:
25. Re-iterating the contentions which were urged
before the learned Single Judge and the contentions raised in
the memorandum of writ appeal, learned senior counsel for the
appellants has made the following submissions:
(i) The order passed by the learned Single Judge is
contrary to the conditions stipulated in the appointing orders,
more particularly, clause-V of the appointment order which
categorically states that the appointee will be covered under
contributory pension scheme and that they are not entitled to
pension as per the existing pension Rules. Having accepted the
said condition, the respondents are estopped from claiming
benefit of old pension scheme.
(ii) The old pension scheme, though, not in existence,
the learned Single Judge has directed the appellants to extend

- 30 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


the benefit of a nonexistent pension scheme. Inasmuch as, on
the date of the appointment of the respondents, the old
pension scheme was discontinued.
(iii) Before implementation of new pension scheme wide
publicity has been given regarding the adoption of Government
order dated 01.04.2006. The decision of the Board was also
communicated to General Manager (Admin) and also published
in the website of KPTCL pursuant to the decision of the Board,
pension contribution has been deducted from out of the salary
paid to the respondents and the grievance about the new
pension scheme has been raised after more than 10 years by
filing the writ petition in the year 2017 and the learned Single
Judge has erroneously held that the amendment made to the
Service Regulations is void.
(iv) There is long lapse of delay and latches in raising
objections for adoption of new pension scheme and the
conditions stipulated in the order of appointment were never
challenged.
(v) Mere submission of the representations without
challenging the conditions of appointment would not enlarge

- 31 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


the limitation/reasonable time to file writ petition after 10 years
of the cause of action.
(vi) The direction issued by the learned Single Judge
amounts to directing the appellants to act contrary to their own
regulation and the condition of the appointment orders. If the
directions are complied, there would be invidious discrimination
between the employees who are on the same status.
(vii) The direction issued by the learned Single Judge
has huge financial implication on the appellant Corporation, the
financial burden would be passed on to the consumers by
increasing the tariff.
(viii) The Courts should have restraint in interfering with
the policy decisions, inasmuch as, while implementing policy
decisions, the authorities are empowered to stipulate the cut off
date.
(ix) The provisions of Regulation 181(1) of the KEB
Employees Service Regulation are not applicable to the facts of
the present case.

- 32 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


26. Sri S. S. Naganand, learned senior counsel has
made the following additional submissions insofar as Writ
Appeal No.1254 of 2023 is concerned:
(i) The order passed by the learned Single Judge is
contrary to the absorption orders in respect of the Gangmen.
Condition No.8 of the terms and conditions of absorption
categorically states that the Gangmen are covered by
contributory pension scheme. After having accepted the said
condition, they are estopped from claiming the benefits of old
pension scheme.
(ii) The appellant had availed the services of the
Gangmen only for a period of 3 to 6 months based on the
requirement, most of the Gangmen were obsorbed only in the
year 2010-11 as on the date of entry of Gangmen into service
the old pension scheme was not in force.
(iii) The terms of memorandum of settlement between
the management of KPTCL and respondent No.1 are binding.
The conversion of 7528 Gangmen into Probationary Mazdoors
and subsequent absorption into the post of Junior Lineman was
carried out in terms of the memorandum of settlement, in

- 33 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


which it is categorically stated that it is only the NPS would
apply. After having accepted the said condition by executing
the agreements on stamp papers, it is not open for them to
now contend that they have vested right and they are covered
under old pension scheme.
27. In support of the proposition that subsequent
regulation do not relates back from the date of initial
appointment the following judgments are relied upon:
i) Union of India and Others Vs Tarsem Singh
reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 ;
ii) Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak Vs Bhavnagar
Municipal Corporation reported in (2022) 18 SCC
144 ;
28. In support of the contention that the employees
aggrieved for the absorption in public employment on certain
terms and conditions stipulated in the order of absorption
cannot subsequently turn around and challenge the conditions:

- 34 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


iii) Central Inland Water Transport Corporation
Limited and Another Vs Brojo Nath Ganguly and
Another reported in (1986) 3 SCC 156;
iv) Pani Ram Vs Union of Indid and Others
reported in (2021) 19 SCC 234;
29. In support of the contention that the writ Court
should refuse to issue writ, if the petitioner is guilty of delay
and latches the following judgments have been relied upon:
v) Bhola Nath Vs The State of Jharkhand and
Others passed in SLP (Civil) No.30762 of 2024;
vi) Union of India and Another Vs K Punniyakoti
and Others passed by Madras High Court in WP
No.2110 of 2024;
30. In support of the contention that mere submission
of repeated representations without approaching the Court at
the earliest point in time would not enlarge the period of
limitation for approaching the writ Court the following
judgments are relied upon

- 35 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


vii) The Director, Local Fund Audit Chennai Vs ARD
Nayagam passed by Madurai Bench of Madras High
Court in WA No.760 of 2013;
viii) Harbans Lal Vs The State of Punjab and Others
passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh in CWP No.2371 of 2010;
31. In support of the contention that the public
authorities need not have to assign reasons while setting out
the cut off date in implementation of the policy decision the
following judgments were relied upon:
ix) State of Punjab and Others Vs Harbans Lal
passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.23578 of
2012 and connected matters;
x) State of Himachal Pradesh and Another Vs
Sheela Devi passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP
No.10399 of 2020 and connected matters;
32. Prof Ravi Varma Kumar, learned senior counsel
instructed by Sri K Srinivas appearing for the respondents in

- 36 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


Writ Appeal No.1254 of 2023 has made the following
submissions:
(i) The appointment of helpers was discontinued in the
year 1992 and the process of appointment of Linemen was
introduced in the year 1992. The designation of helpers was
changed as Gangmen and they were called as temporary
Gangmen, strong Gangmen, monsoon Gangmen, emergency
Gangmen etc., The appellants have introduced a new cadre
called as Probationary Mazdoors, earlier cadre was Assistant
Linemen. The Union of temporary Gangmen working in the
entire State have raised industrial dispute before the Industrial
Tribunal seeking their absorption into the permanent cadre. The
meeting of the Chairman and Managing Director of KPTCL with
the Managing Directors of all the ESCOMs was held to consider
the absorption of 7528 Gangmen into the permanent cadre.
The proposal was sent to the State for approval.
(ii) The State Government had accorded approval for
the proposal of KPTCL and 5 ESCOMs on 25.02.2004 for
absorption of Gangmen as Probationary Mazdoors subject to
conditions including following of the reservation policy of the
Government. As provided under Section 2(p) of the Industrial

- 37 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


Disputes Act, a settlement was entered into between appellant
No.1 with the respondent - Union for providing absorption of
7528 Gangmen as Probationary Mazdoors in a phased manner.
On 01.04.2005, more than 2000 Gangmen were absorbed as
Probationary Mazdoors and the same process continued in the
year 2006 and 2007. By 2007 more than 50% of 7528
Gangmen were absorbed into permanent cadre of Probationary
Mazdoors. On 05.07.2007, appellant No.1 passed a Resolution
to adopt new contributory pension scheme in respect of the
employees appointed after 01.04.2006.
(iii) A combined reading of Sections 174, 178, 179, 181
and 181A of the Service Regulation of the appellant, it is
unmistakably clear that even the employees appointed on a
temporary basis are entitled for pension, let alone on contract
basis. When a temporary employee is entitled for pension in
terms of the aforementioned Rules, the respondents who have
been absorbed to the post of Probationary Mazdoors with the
applicable pay scale much prior to the adoption of new pension
scheme are entitled to be considered under the old pension
scheme.

- 38 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


(iv) The Resolution of the appellant for implementation
of the new defined contributory pension scheme clearly
stipulates that the said scheme is applicable from 01.04.2006
for new entrants to KPTCL/ESCOMs services. Therefore,
condition No.1 of the decision of the appellant is not applicable
to the case of the respondents, since the members of the
respondent - Union have joined the services 6 years prior to
01.04.2003.
(v) Referring to the very same decision of the Board,
learned senior counsel pointed out that Clause-10 of the said
order speaks about the amendment of KEB Employees Service
Regulation. However, no such amendment to the Service
Regulations has been carried out. Only recently, the submission
has been made on behalf of the appellants that an amendment
has been brought into the Employees Service Regulation.
However, the same has not been notified to the concerned.
Therefore, any such amendment carried out without following
the due process of law would not stand in the way of grant of
relief to the respondents.
(vi) Elaborating the said submission, learned senior
counsel takes us to the Memorandum of Settlement dated

- 39 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


03.06.2004 and points out that the management and the union
have agreed for conversion of Gangmen who were working
continuously and completed 6 years of continuous service as on
01.04.2003 as Probationary Mazdoors in a phased manner
every year commencing from 01.04.2003 subject to seniority
and suitability as per Probationary Mazdoors Regulations as
amended. After successful completion of three years of tenure
as Probationary Mazdoors, they are agreed to be absorbed as
Junior Linemen in a new cadre proposed to be created in the
pay scale of 3125 - 6575.
(vii) It is the submission of learned senior counsel that
the aforesaid settlement was arrived at pursuant to the
approval of the State Government dated 25.02.2004. Referring
to the communication dated 23.10.2010 addressed by the
appellant to the Principal Secretary, Department of Energy,
points out that the appellant - Corporation and other 5 ESCOMs
have converted the services of Gangmen into the services of
Probationary Mazdoors from the year 2005 till 2010.
(viii) It is further pointed out that as on 23.10.2010,
services of 7045 Gangmen have been converted into
Probationary Mazdoors and the remaining Gangmen were only

- 40 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


483 in numbers. Therefore, submits that, by 01.04.2006
services of more than 5000 Gangmen have been converted into
Probationary Mazdoors and the remaining employees were
converted into Probationary Mazdoors post 2007 since the
conversion of the services of Gangmen into Probationary
Mazdoors has occurred prior to the decision of KPTCL to adopt
new pension scheme, the benefit of old Pension Scheme cannot
be denied.
(ix) In support of the aforesaid submissions the Learned
Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs
6
Tarsem Singh and contended that in the service
jurisprudence, if there is a continuous wrong and recurring
successive wrongs, the question of delay in approaching the
Court does not arise. Belated service related claims will be
rejected on the ground of delay and latches or limitations.
However, one of the exception to the said Rule is cases relating
to the continuing wrong.

6
(2008) 8 SCC 648

- 41 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


(x) Learned senior counsel relies upon paragraph 7 of
the said judgment, which reads as follows:
"7. To summarise, normally, a belated service
related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and
laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition)
or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application
to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to
the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong.
Where a service related claim is based on a continuing
wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay
in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which
the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing
wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is
an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in
respect of any order or administrative decision which
related to or affected several others also, and if the
reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of
third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For
example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of
pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay
as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the
claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion,
etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale
and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar
as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a
past period is concerned, the principles relating to
recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a
consequence, the High Courts will restrict the
consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a

- 42 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


period of three years prior to the date of filing of the
writ petition."

(xi) Learned senior counsel further relied upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhola
7
Nath Vs The State of Jharkhand and Others and submits
that that there can be no waiver of fundamental rights
guaranteed under the Constitution. The mere fact that the
management and the employees were governed by the
contractual terms and conditions cannot be construed as waiver
of their fundamental right. It is further pointed out from the
said judgment that where the employees have continued to
discharge their duties on contractual basis for a considerable
length of time, it is quite natural that the legitimate expectation
arises that the State would at some stage recognize their long
and continuous service.
(xii) Learned senior counsel has further relied upon the
judgment in the case of Bhikhani Devi and Others Vs Union
8
of India and Others . The point that was formulated for
consideration in the said judgment is as follows:

7

SLP (Civil) No.30762/2024 DD 30.01.2026
8
SLP (C) Nos.28802-28804/2019 DD 01.06.2026

- 43 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


“Whether temporary status casual labourer, in
the absence of a formal order of regularization, would
be entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation or
not?”
The said question has been answered in paragraph 76 of
the said order as follows:
“A temporary status casual labourer would be
entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation, even
in the absence of regularization.”
(xiii) Learned senior counsel has placed reliance on
paragraphs 40, 41, 42, 51 and 76 of the said judgment, which
reads as follows:
"40. The concept of the State as a model
employer, read in conjunction with the aforesaid
constitutional mandate, reinforces the obligation upon
the State to extend fair and equitable treatment to
employees who have rendered long and continuous
service and that the State cannot extract services of a
permanent nature while denying corresponding benefits.

41. At this stage, it is also necessary to note that
pension is not a bounty but a vested and enforceable
constitutional right. This Court in State of Jharkhand v.
Jitendra Kumar Srivastava has categorically held that
pension is a hard-earned benefit amassed by an
employee by virtue of long and continuous service and

- 44 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


is in the nature of “property” within the meaning of
Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

42. Once pension is recognised as a constitutional
right in the nature of property, it cannot be taken away
except by authority of law. A statutory right cannot be
rendered illusory on account of inaction of the employer,
and such inaction cannot defeat or deny a constitutional
right. It is in the light of this above discussed judicial
approach of this Court over a period of time, the
provisions of the Scheme and the subsequent applicable
circulars must be read, understood and interpreted.

51. Clause 17 assumes equal significance in
understanding the true intent underlying the Scheme. It
mandates that no recruitment from open market for
Group ‘D’ posts, except compassionate appointment,
shall be undertaken so long as eligible casual labourers
possessing requisite qualifications are available for
appointment. Such a provision clearly manifests the
intention of the Scheme to accord primacy to existing
temporary status casual labourers for eventual
absorption against Group ‘D’ posts and to ensure that
such employees are not indefinitely deprived of regular
service benefits despite long years of continuous
service.
76. The question as framed in para 32 above
stands answered as follows:
‘A temporary status casual labourer would be
entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation even
in the absence of regularisation.’

- 45 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023



(xiv) Learned senior counsel has placed reliance on
Sections 133 and 185 of Electricity Act, 2003, which reads as
follows:
"133. Provisions relating to officers and
employees.–
(1) The State Government may, by a transfer
scheme, provide for the transfer of the officers and
employees to the transferee on the vesting of
properties, rights and liabilities in such transferee as
provided under section 131.
(2) Upon such transfer under the transfer
scheme, the personnel shall hold office or service under
the transferee on such terms and conditions as may be
determined in accordance with the transfer scheme:
Provided that such terms and conditions on the
transfer shall not in any way be less favourable than
those which would have been applicable to them if there
had been no such transfer under the transfer scheme:
Provided further that the transfer can be
provisional for a stipulated period.
Explanation.–For the purposes of this section and
the transfer scheme, the expression “officers and
employees” shall mean all officers and employees who
on the date specified in the scheme are the officers and

- 46 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


employees of the Board or transferor, as the case may
be.
185. Repeal and saving.–
(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the
Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (9 of 1910), the Electricity
(Supply) Act, 1948 (54 of 1948) and the Electricity
Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 (14 of 998) are
hereby repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding such repeal,–
(a) anything done or any action taken or
purported to have been done or taken including any
rule, notification, inspection, order or notice made or
issued or any appointment, confirmation or declaration
made or any licence, permission, authorisation or
exemption granted or any document or instrument
executed or any direction given under the repealed laws
shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the
provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done or
taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act;
(b) the provisions contained in sections 12 to
18 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (9 of 1910) and
rules made thereunder shall have effect until the rules
under section 67 to 69 of this Act are made;
(c) the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 made
under section 37 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (9 of
1910) as it stood before such repeal shall continue to be

- 47 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


in force till the regulations under section 53 of this Act
are made;
(d) all rules made under sub-section (1) of
section 69 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (54 of
1948) shall continue to have effect until such rules are
rescinded or modified, as the case may be;
(e) all directives issued, before the
commencement of this Act, by a State Government
under the enactments specified in the Schedule shall
continue to apply for the period for which such
directions were issued by the State Government.
(3) The provisions of the enactments specified
in the Schedule, not inconsistent with the provisions of
this Act, shall apply to the States in which such
enactments are applicable.
(4) The Central Government may, as and when
considered necessary, by notification, amend the
Schedule.
(5) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section
(2), the mention of particular matters in that section,
shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general
application of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897
(10 of 1897), with regard to the effect of repeals."

- 48 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


33. Sri V B Vijaykumar, learned counsel appearing for
the respondents in Writ Appeal No.1240 of 2023 has made the
following submissions:
(i) On 07.05.2003, Notification was issued by the
appellant inviting applications for recruitment to the post of
Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers on a contract basis.
Pursuant to the process of appointment, the appointment
orders have been issued to the respondents on 26.10.2003.
Thereafter, on 16.03.2007, the appellant - Board passed a
Resolution to regularize the services of Assistant Engineers and
Junior Engineers, who were appointed on a contract basis. Writ
Petition No.7425 of 2007 was filed by the Junior Engineers who
were already in service of the appellant with Diploma
qualification on the ground that on account of regularization of
the respondents in the post of Assistant Engineers on contract
basis and thereafter in the regular post they were deprived of
applying for the post of Assistant Engineers, since the
Notification which was issued on 07.05.2003 was for
appointment on contract basis. The said writ petition came to
be disposed of with an observation that the regularization of
the respondents would not affect the seniority of in-service

- 49 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


candidates. The said order was called in question by one of the
existing Junior Engineers by filing Writ Appeal No.2478 of 2010
and Writ Appeal Nos.4516-17 of 2010, which appeals was
dismissed on 15.06.2012. Challenging the same, SLP
No.20338 of 2012 was filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court,
which also came to be dismissed on 08.04.2013. It is
thereafter, the respondents - writ petitioners had submitted a
representation on 11.11.2014, which was rejected in the year
2016 and immediately thereafter, the respondents – writ
petitioners have approached this Court in the year 2016.
Therefore, there is no delay in approaching this Court.
(ii) It is the submission of learned counsel that the
appointment of the petitioners on contract basis was pursuant
to a valid recruitment Notification dated 07.05.2003. Since all
the writ petitioners were eligible to be appointed to the post of
Assistant Engineers were recruited to the said post after due
consideration of their eligibility. But for the ban on regular
recruitment, the writ petitioners would have been appointed on
a regular basis in the year 2003 itself. They were all appointed
as against the sanctioned vacant posts. Therefore, for all

- 50 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


practical purposes, their appointment in the year 2003 is to be
considered as a regular appointment.
(iii) Referring to the decision of the appellant regarding
appointment of the writ petitioners to the post of Assistant
Engineers and contract Junior Engineers and the agreement
signed by the employees the Learned Counsel points out that
no condition or undertaking is obtained as regards the
applicable pension scheme. He further points out that in the
order of appointment dated 30.04.2007 at Annexure-H
condition No.5 states regarding the applicability of contributory
pension scheme which is under consideration for adoption by
the appellant w.e.f. 01.04.2006. It is his submission that when
the new contributory pension scheme was adopted on
05.07.2007, the imposition of condition No.5 in the
appointment order dated 30.04.2007 that the employees are
covered by the new pension scheme which has not yet been
adopted as on the date of issuance of appointment order dated
30.04.2007 is void and non-est . As on the said date, the new
pension scheme was not yet adopted by the appellant. Learned
counsel has adopted the other submissions made by Prof Ravi

- 51 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


Varma Kumar, learned senior counsel on the other aspects are
concerned.
(iv) In support of the aforesaid contentions, learned
counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Central Inland Water Transport
Corporation Ltd. and Others Vs Brojonath Ganguly and
9
Another and submits that the Courts when called upon will
strike down an unfair and unreasonable contract or an unfair
and unreasonable clause in a contract entered into between
parties who are not equal in bargaining power. Placing reliance
on the aforesaid principle, learned counsel submits that in the
present case, the writ petitioners had no bargaining power
against the mighty appellant corporation and therefore, any
contracts between the appellant and the writ petitioners
regarding applicable pension scheme is non-est in the eye of
law, since the writ petitioners were not in a position to oppose
any conditions stipulated in the order of appointment.
(v) He places reliance on the judgment in Pani Ram
10
Vs Union of India and Others , more particularly,

9

(1986) 3 SCC 156
10

(2021) 19 SCC 234

- 52 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


paragraph 23 and points out that the employee who has been
asked to assent to a contract or to sign on the dotted line in a
prescribed or standard form or to accept a set of Rules as part
of the contract, however unfair, unreasonable and
unconscionable a clause in that contract marked form or rules
may be, opposed to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The
sum and substance of the aforesaid Resolution of the appellant
is also on the same line of the judgment in the case of Central
Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. (supra). Placing
reliance on the aforesaid two judgments, learned counsel
submits that condition No.5 in the order of appointment cannot
be a ground to deny the old pension scheme.
(vi) Regarding the expression ‘new entrant’, learned
counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Madras
High Court in the case of Union of India and Another Vs K
11
Punniyakoti and Others and submits that the writ
petitioners have entered into services of appellant - Corporation
on 07.05.2003 and their services has been regularized pursuant
to the Board Resolution dated 16.03.2007 and therefore, their
entry into service of the appellant - Corporation is not on

11
WP No.2110/2014 DD 19.03.2014

- 53 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


30.04.2007, but it was on 07.05.2003 itself and hence, the writ
petitioners cannot be called as new entrants to apply new
contributory pension scheme pursuant to the Resolution dated
16.03.2007. Accordingly, submits that the order passed by the
learned Single Judge requires no interference at the hands of
this Court.
34. In reply, Sri S S Naganand, learned senior counsel
for appellant has made the following submissions:
(i) The Electricity Act is in the concurrent list.
Therefore, the State has promulgated the Karnataka Electricity
Reforms Act, 1999. Section 13 deals with the constitution of
the company pursuant to which, the appellant Corporation has
been incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. All the
functions of the appellant is in terms of its memorandum of
association and under the provisions of the Karnataka
Electricity Reforms Act. Upon Constitution of the appellant
Corporation, it is the principal company which undertakes
transmission and other related work of determining the
electricity requirement of the State, co-ordination with the
generating companies, the State Government, Commission etc.
Section 14 recognizes the Karnataka Electricity Board. Upon

- 54 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


constitution of the appellant Corporation, the property, interest
in property, rights and liabilities which immediately before the
effective date of first transfer belonged to the Board shall vest
in the State Government and thereafter under sub section (2)
of Section 14, the property, interest in the property, rights and
liabilities vested in the State Government under sub Section (1)
of Section 14 may be re-vested by the State Government in the
appellant – Corporation or in the generating Company in
accordance with the transfer scheme by virtue of Section 185
of the Electricity Act, 2003. Indian Electricity Act, 1910,
Electricity Supply Act, 1948 and Electricity Regulatory
Commission Act, 1998 are all repealed and the function of
appellant is only in terms of Electricity Act, 2003 read with
Karnataka Electricity Reform Act, 1999. Therefore, the
amendment as suggested in the Resolution dated 05.07.2007
regarding amendment to KEB Employees Service Regulation is
misnomer.
(ii) It is his further submission that Gangmen and the
contract Engineers who were appointed on consolidated
monthly remuneration are not covered under the old pension
scheme. Their entry into regular service of the appellant –

- 55 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


Corporation is only from the date of their absorption or
appointment on permanent basis. Therefore, the writ
petitioners had no vested right in insisting the appellant –
Corporation to apply the old pension scheme in respect of their
services.
(iii) Insofar as reliance placed by Prof Ravi Varma
Kumar, learned senior counsel and Sri Vijaykumar, learned
counsel on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Bhola Nath (supra) and Bhikhani Devi (supra), it is the
submission of learned senior counsel Sri S. S. Naganand that in
the case of Bhola Nath (supra) , the prayer of employee for
regularization was refused on the ground that their
appointment was purely on a contract basis. In terms of the
conditions stipulated in the office order by which they were
temporarily engaged in services and there is no obligation to
regularize or absorb the appointees. In the said context relying
upon the judgment in the case of State of Karnataka Vs Uma
Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, the Apex Court has directed
regularization of the services of the employee against the
sanctioned post, to which they were initially appointed with all
consequential benefits. While granting such a relief, the

- 56 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


Hon'ble Apex Court has deprecated the practice adopted by
States i.e engaging the employees under the nominal lables of
part-time, contractual or temporary in perpetuity and exploiting
them by not regularizing their positions. It is the submission
that the case on hand is not the one relating to the
regularization of services of the employees. It is the applicable
pension scheme post absorption/regular appointment.
(iv) As regards the judgment in the case of Bhikhani
Devi (supra), learned senior counsel taking us through
paragraph 75 of the said order, points out that the subject
matter of the said case is with regard to the applicability of the
pension scheme subject to fulfilment of the conditions and
eligibility criteria provided therein. The applicability of the
pension scheme in the said case was not dependent on the
order of regularization. The scheme provided for conferment of
additional benefit to the previous service of an employee upon
his regularization and acquisition of new status of regular
employee, apart from the benefits conferred under the Rules.
When the benefit provided under the scheme for the employees
who are regularized on a subsequent date for grant of
additional benefit in respect of the services rendered prior to

- 57 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


the regularization cannot be denied only on the ground of delay
in approaching the Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further
observed that the arrears, if any, payable to the employees in
terms of the applicable scheme has been restricted to a period
of 3 years preceding the date of filing of the application before
the Tribunal. It is his submission that the facts and
circumstances of the present case are altogether different from
the one obtaining in the cited decision. On these submissions,
learned senior counsel Sri S. S. Naganand, prays for allowing
the appeals and setting aside the judgment passed by the
learned Single Judge.
CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS AND
REASONING
35. Having heard the learned Counsels and perused the
material on record including the judgment passed by the
learned Single Judge we proceed to consider the submissions
with the following reasons.
36. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioners in Writ
Petition No.32866 of 2017 and Writ Petition No.9774 of 2016
were appointed on 07.05.2003 on contract basis for a period of
one year extendable for a further period of three years on a

- 58 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


Rs.
consolidated remuneration of 8,000/- per month with a
specific condition that the said employment was on contract
basis and would be governed by the terms of the contract
appointment. Therefore, the appointment made in the year
2003 was in the nature of contract appointment and there was
no permanency of the appointment. The employment of the
aforesaid writ petitioners assumed the characteristic of the
permanent employment only pursuant to the decision of the
Board of appellant in the meeting held on 16.03.2007 followed
by the issuance of appointment orders dated 30.04.2007 with
the time scale of pay of Rs.8,645/- - Rs.15,025/- with effect
from the date of appointment order i.e., dated 30.04.2007. The
relevant portion of the Resolution of the Board dated
16.03.2007 and the relevant conditions contained in the
appointment order dated 30.04.2007 has already been noticed
and extracted in the early part of this judgment.
37. As could be seen from the terms of the Resolution
of the Board that the appointment of writ petitioners was made
permanent prospectively from the date of issuance of the
appointment order. In the order of appointment, a specific
condition has been spelt out that the service rendered by the

- 59 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


writ petitioners on contract basis shall not count for any
purpose including fixation of salary, seniority, promotion or
pension. It is also specifically informed to the appointees that
they are not entitled for pension as per the existing pension
Rules, however, they are covered under the contributory
pension scheme, which was under consideration at relevant
point of time and which has been subsequently adopted by the
appellant with effect from 01.04.2006. Followed by issuance of
the appointment order, each of the writ petitioners who were
appointed to the post of Assistant Engineers have executed an
agreement dated 30.05.2007 accepting the terms and
conditions of the order of appointment dated 30.04.2007 and
also undertaking to abide by the conditions stipulated in the
agreement. Therefore, the terms and conditions of the order of
appointment dated 30.04.2007 and the agreement dated
30.05.2007 are to be read in conjunction to understand the
consensus of the employer and the employee regarding the
terms of the appointment.
38. We have noticed that the appellant - Corporation
had taken a decision on 05.07.2007 for implementing new
defined contributory pension scheme with effect from

- 60 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


01.04.2006. The condition No.1 of the order of approval for
implementing the new pension scheme is as follows:
“The new defined contributory pension scheme
shall be mandatory to all new recruits of
KPTCL/ESCOMS service joining on or after 01.04.2006.
The monthly contribution shall be 10% of the basic pay
and dearness allowance thereon to be paid by the
employee and matched by KPTCL/ESCOMS in equal
proportion. However, there shall be no contribution from
KPTCL/ESCOMS in respect of individuals who are not
KPTCL/ESCOMS employees.”
39. From a reading of the aforesaid conditions, it is
understandable that, for implementation of new pension
scheme, what is relevant is that the employees must have been
appointed on or after 01.04.2006 on a permanent basis. If only
the appointment was on a permanent basis, the question of
deduction of 10% of the basic pay and dearness allowance
would arise. A permanency in appointment could be gathered
only if the appointment of the employees is on a pay scale
attached to the particular cadre post. The appointment of the
writ petitioners in the services of the appellant - Corporation
with the pay scale attached to the post of Assistant Engineers
was pursuant to the issuance of the appointment order dated

- 61 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


30.04.2007. Prior to the said date, the writ petitioners were
Rs.
drawing a consolidated remuneration of 8,000/- on the basis
of contractual employment. Therefore, the entry of writ
petitioners into the services of appellant cannot be prior to the
orders of appointment dated 30.04.2007. For the purpose of
consideration, as to the application of old pension scheme or
new pension scheme, the relevant date is the entry into the
services on a permanent basis and not the contractual
appointment.
40. The expression “New Entrants” depicted in the
proceedings of the appellant dated 05.07.2007 cannot be
interpreted to mean that the entry of the writ petitioners to the
services of the appellant – Corporation on 07.05.2003 on
contractual basis was the entry into the services of the
appellant – Corporation. The expression “New Entrants” will
have to be understood as the entry into the services of the
appellant on permanent basis with the pay scale attached to
the post. Therefore, the argument of the writ petitioners that
they are not “New Entrants” as on 01.04.2006 and they were
already in service from 07.05.2003, therefore, they are covered

- 62 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


by the old pension scheme and not the new contributory
pension scheme deserves to be rejected.
41. It is to be noticed that though the writ petitioners
had worked in the establishment of the appellant – Corporation
from 07.05.2003 till their appointment had been given the
status of permanence on 30.04.2007 they did not had any
vested right in the respective posts in which they worked on
contract basis on the consolidated remuneration. Any right
which had accrued in favour of the writ petitioners in the post
of Assistant Engineers was only from the date of issuance of
appointment order dated 30.04.2007. We say so, because, if
the arguments of the writ petitioners is accepted that their
entry into service was on 07.05.2003, it amounts to declaration
that the actual date of appointment of the writ petitioners is on
07.05.2003 and not 30.04.2007. The said declaration cannot be
made in the light of the admitted proposition that even in the
case of regularization of the employees, the order of
regularization would not relates back to the date of entry into
service on contract or casual nature. Any order of regularization
would be effective only from the date of the order of
regularization. The doctrine of relation back is not applicable in

- 63 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


the matter of regularization of the employees in the services of
the State.
42. As observed above, the petitioners were issued with
the order of regular appointment on 30.04.2007 with the
specific conditions as extracted above. As on the date of
issuance of the said appointment orders they were clearly made
known that the services rendered by them on a contract basis
shall not count for any purpose including the pension. It was
also made known that their services are covered under
contributory pension scheme and not the existing pension
Rules. Knowing full well the aforesaid two important conditions
stipulated in the orders of appointment, the writ petitioners
have accepted the appointment and discharged their duties
without any demur. From the day one of the order of
appointment on a permanent basis, the appellant- Corporation
has deducted 10% of the basic pay and the dearness allowance
being the employee's contribution under the new pension
scheme. Therefore, from the first day of drawing of the salary
by the writ petitioners, they were aware about the applicable
pension scheme in respect of their services. The deduction of

- 64 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


the contribution was never opposed by the writ petitioners till
2014 when the representation was submitted for the first time.
43. On a close reading of the representation dated
27.09.2014, what is discerned is that the writ petitioners have
woken up to agitate for applying old pension scheme for their
services taking cue from the orders passed by the Hon’ble
Madras High Court in Writ Petition No.11221 of 2010 and other
connected matters. Even according to the writ petitioners,
there was no representation seeking to apply old pension
scheme from the year 2007 till 27.09.2014 i.e., for a period of
more than 7 years.
44. Analogous to the averments made in the
representation of the petitioners, if the averments made in the
writ petition is seen, it is quite clear that the cause of action for
the petitioners to approach this Court in the year 2016 is the
order passed by the Madras High Court. In paragraph 9 of the
writ petition, it is averred that they were advised that their
appointment was much prior to 01.04.2006 therefore, are
entitled to be covered by the old pension scheme, though their
recruitment was on a contract basis. Hence, a representation
dated 27.09.2014 was submitted. The said representation

- 65 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


having been rejected through endorsement dated 31.01.2016,
which resulted in the filing of the writ petitions. Therefore, it is
clear that the cause of action pleaded by the petitioners is the
order passed by the Madras High Court and the submission of
representation dated 27.09.2014 and the issuance of
endorsement dated 30.01.2016. On noticing the facts of the
judgment of the Madras High Court and the facts and
circumstances obtaining in the present case we are opinion that
the said judgment cannot fit into to the present case.
45. It is well established that the submission of
representation after long lapse of time and issuance of the
endorsement in response to the said representation would not
become a cause of action to approach the writ court after long
lapse of delay. We have noticed that the prayer in the writ
petition was for quashing of the endorsement dated 30.01.2016
and for issue of writ of mandamus to apply the old pension
scheme in respect of the services of the petitioners and also for
refund of the contribution deducted from the pay of the writ
petitioners along with accumulated interest. The decision of the
appellant for adoption of new pension scheme with effect from
01.04.2006 nor the conditions stipulated in the order of

- 66 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


appointment dated 30.04.2007 were not challenged. If the
conditions of the appointment were not challenged, the
question of issuance of writ of mandamus to apply the old
pension scheme considering the date of entry of the petitioners
in the services of the appellant – Corporation as 07.05.2003
and the refund of contribution does not arise. No reasons are
assigned in the writ petition as to the reason for long lapse of
delay of 9 years in approaching the writ court. If the writ
petitioners were aggrieved by the conditions stipulated in the
order of appointment as regards the applicable pension Rules,
nothing prevented the petitioners from approaching this Court
seeking redressal.
46. The submission of the learned counsel for the writ
petitioners that the writ petitioners were not having the equal
amount of bargaining power with that of the appellant –
Corporation cannot be accepted for the simple reason that, if
the writ petitioners could approach this Court for redressal of
their grievances in the year 2016, nothing prevented them from
approaching the Court in the year 2007 when the orders of
appointment were issued with specific conditions.

- 67 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


47. The other reason assigned by the writ petitioners in
Writ Petition No.9774 of 2016 that their appointment to the
post of Assistant Engineers was challenged by existing Junior
Engineers of the appellant – Corporation in Writ Petition No.
7425 of 2007, Writ Appeal No. 2478 of 2010 and SLP No.20338
of 2012, which proceedings was concluded only in the year
2013 and immediately thereafter they approached this Court is
difficult to accept. Because, the grounds of challenge to the
appointment of the writ petitioners was that the petitioners in
the said writ petition were working as Junior Engineers with
diploma qualification and they were not aware of the fact that
the appellant – Corporation is going to appoint the Assistant
Engineers who were appointed on a contract basis pursuant to
Notification dated 07.05.2003 on permanent basis. If the same
was made known to the Junior Engineers who were in service,
they would have applied for the appointment pursuant to
Notification dated 07.05.2003. The pendency of the said writ
petition was not an impediment for the writ petitioners to
challenge the conditions of appointment. While dismissing Writ
Petition No.7425 of 2007, the learned Single Judge has
observed that there cannot be a regularization with
retrospective effect. The regularization will not affect the

- 68 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


seniority of the in-service candidates. Therefore, the writ
petition was dismissed, which was confirmed in the writ appeal,
so also, by the Hon'ble Apex Court. At any stretch of
imagination, it could be inferred that the pendency of the said
writ petition was an impediment for the petitioners to challenge
the terms and conditions of the appointment. It is the very
same Resolution dated 16.03.2007 passed by the appellant –
Corporation, followed by the orders of appointment that was
sought to be defended/sustained by the writ petitioners in the
earlier writ petition. If that be so, it does not lie in the mouth of
the writ petitioners to contend that because of the challenge
made to the Resolution of the appellant – Corporation, they
were prevented from challenging the terms and conditions of
the appointment order dated 30.04.2007.
48. As regards the issue relating to fixing the cut-off
date is concerned, the Board of the appellant - Corporation has
resolved to adopt the new pension scheme pursuant to its
Resolution dated 05.07.2007, which were made applicable to all
the new recruits joining the services of the Corporation on or
after 01.04.2006. The stipulation of date 01.04.2006 cannot be
held to be illegal or arbitrary, inasmuch as, it is the said date

- 69 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


from which the new defined contributory pension scheme has
been adopted by the State Government in respect of the
employees of the State. The very same date has been
stipulated by the appellant – Corporation for adoption of the
new pension scheme. The decision of the appellant –
Corporation for adoption of the new pension scheme with effect
from 01.04.2006 could neither be called as arbitrary or
whimsical or malafide. Therefore, no amount of argument as as
against the stipulation of cut-off date for applying the new
pension scheme does hold any substance, inasmuch as, the
observation made by the learned Single Judge at paragraph 33
of the order that the act of the appellant – Corporation in fixing
the cut-off date is not fair and reasonable is unsustainable.
The question to be considered is not as to the stipulation of the
cut-off date of applying the new pension scheme in respect of
the employees who are appointed after 01.04.2006. What is
relevant for the consideration in the present case is as to
whether the services rendered by the writ petitioners on the
basis of contract employment with effect from 07.05.2003 is to
be considered for applying the pension scheme. As observed
above, the date 01.04.2006 is not the date which has been
chosen by the appellant – Corporation. It is the date on which

- 70 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


the State Government has adopted the new pension scheme to
the employees of the State. The same scheme has been
adopted by the appellant – Corporation to the services of its
employees. The effective date for applying the new pension
scheme in respect of the employees of the State is with effect
from 01.04.2006. The applicability of the very same scheme in
respect of the employees of the Corporation cannot be from a
different date. Therefore, the observation of the learned Single
Judge at paragraph 33 of the impugned order regarding the
fixation of the cut-off date does not stand for reason.
49. The other argument of the learned counsel for the
writ petitioners that the appointment of the writ petitioners is
covered by Regulation 181 of the KEB Employees Service
Regulation is also liable to be rejected for the reason that the
said Regulation was made applicable to the temporary and
permanent employees of the Corporation. However, in the
present case, the appointment of the writ petitioners was on
contract basis with the consolidated remuneration and not with
the pay scale. Therefore, the services of the contract
employees cannot be equated with that of the temporary or

- 71 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


permanent employees. This distinction has not been noticed by
the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order.
50. Much of the arguments have been canvassed,
contending that the right to receive the pension is a
fundamental right. In view of the series of judgments of the
Hon'ble Apex Court, there is no quarrel about the proposition
that the right of an employee to receive pension is a
fundamental right. The question which is involved in the
present case is not about the right of the employees to receive
pension, but it is about the applicability of the relevant pension
scheme. In the present case, there is no denial of the
pensionary benefit. But, issue is as to whether the writ
petitioners who are appointed on a contract basis with effect
from 07.05.2003 are entitled to receive the pension under the
old pension scheme considering their entry into service as
07.05.2003 as against their appointment on permanent basis
with effect from 30.04.2007. This aspect has already been
considered elaborately with the finding that the entry into
service of the appellant – Corporation by the writ petitioners for
consideration of the applicable pension scheme is on
30.04.2007 and not 07.05.2003. Therefore, the argument that

- 72 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


the right of the writ petitioners to receive pension is being
infringed by the appellant – Corporation cannot be accepted
and id accordingly rejected.
51. All the judgments which are relied upon by the
petitioners are concerning the right of the employee to receive
pension and the Hon'ble Apex Court has come to the rescue of
the employees wherever their right to receive pension has been
infringed.
52. In the case of Bhola Nath (supra) , the prayer of
the employee for regularization was refused on the ground that
their appointment was purely on a contract basis. In terms of
the conditions stipulated in the office order by which they were
temporarily engaged in services and there is no obligation to
regularize or absorb the appointees in the said posts. The
Hon'ble Apex Court relying upon the judgment in the case of
State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC
1, has directed regularization of the services of the employee
against the sanctioned post, to which they were initially
appointed with all consequential benefits. While granting such
a relief, the Hon'ble Apex Court has deprecated the practice
adopted by States of engaging the employees under the

- 73 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


nominal lables of part-time, contractual or temporary in
perpetuity and exploiting them by not regularizing their
positions. The case on hand is not the one relating to the
regularization of services of the employees. It is the applicable
pension scheme post absorption/regular appointment.
53. As regards the judgment in the case of Bhikhani
Devi (supra), the subject matter of the said case is with regard
to the applicability of the pension scheme subject to fulfilment
of the conditions and eligibility criteria provided therein. The
applicability of the pension scheme in the said case was not
dependent on the order of regularization. The scheme provided
for conferment of additional benefit to the previous service to
an employee upon his regularization, apart from the benefits
conferred under the Rules, namely, upon acquisition of new
status of the regular employee. When the benefit provided
under the scheme for the employees who are regularized on a
subsequent date for grant of additional benefit in respect of the
services rendered prior to the regularization cannot be denied
only on the ground of delay in approaching the Court. The
Hon'ble Apex Court has further observed that the arrears, if
any, payable to the employees in terms of the applicable

- 74 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


scheme has been restricted to a period of 3 years preceding the
date of filing of the application before the Tribunal. The facts
and circumstances of the present case is altogether different
from the one obtaining in the cited decision. The argument
that there is continuing and successive wrong therefore,
doctrine of delay and latches is not applicable is also not
available to the petitioners since, there is nothing on record to
show that the deduction of 10% of the basis pay and dearness
allowance from the date of permanent appointment is wrong or
erroneous. It was not open for the petitioners to presume that
the employer has committed wrong from the day one and the
said wrong can be assailed at any point in time. As noticed by
us from the pleadings in the Writ Petition and the
representation submitted for the first time in the year 2014 the
cause of action for their representation and filing of Writ
Petition is the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court. In
the light of the above reasoning, the judgment of Tarsem
Singh (supra) cannot be applied to the case on hand.
54. As regards the case of 7528 Gangmen are
concerned, the facts are slightly different than the case of the
Assistant Engineers/Junior Engineers. After much agitation and

- 75 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


consultation between the Union of employees and the appellant
management, the appellant had forwarded the proposal for
conversion of 7528 Gangmen into Probationary Mazdoors and
consequent absorption as Junior Linemen. The State
Government has conveyed its approval on 25.02.2004 with the
condition that the Gangmen who have completed 6 years of
service as on 01.04.2003 could be considered for conversion
into Probationary Mazdoors and the same formula could be
continued for the subsequent years. The State Government has
further clarified that no subsidy would be granted by the State
to the appellant Corporation on account of the scheme of
absorption.
55. It is pursuant to the aforesaid approval of the State
Government, the employees' Union and the Management have
entered into a settlement dated 03.06.2004. The terms of the
said settlement has been noticed and considered extensively.
From the conditions imposed by the order of the State dated
25.02.2004 and the consequential memorandum settlement
between the management and the Union, it discern that 7528
Gangmen would acquire eligibility for conversion as
Probationary Mazdoors and for consequential absorption to the

- 76 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


post of junior Lineman only in terms of the conditions stipulated
in the Government Order dated 25.02.2004, namely, the
Gangmen who have completed 6 years of service as on
01.04.2003 were alone made entitle for conversion as
Probationary Mazdoors. Therefore, it is clear that all 7528
Gangmen were not eligible for either conversion as
Probationary Mazdoors and the consequential absorption to the
post of Lineman. On the date of settlement itself, the
conversion and absorption was made dependent upon the
length of service put in by each of the Gangmen out of 7528 in
numbers. It is only those Gangmen whose services was
converted into Probationary Mazdoors and the consequential
absorption to the post of Junior Lineman prior to 01.04.2006
are alone covered by the old pension scheme and the
employees who have been converted as Probationary Mazdoors
and absorbed into the post of Junior Lineman after 01.04.2006
are not entitled for application of old pension scheme. However,
they are covered by new pension scheme. We say so because,
the Gangmen who have been converted as Probationary
Mazdoors were not entitled for the pay scale attached to the
post of Junior Lineman immediately after their conversion.
Upon conversion from the Gangmen to the Probationary

- 77 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


Mazdoors, they were entitled for the monthly remuneration at
the rate of Rs.2,000/-, Rs.2,250/- and Rs.2,500/- per month
during first, second and third year of probation, as could be
seen from the proceedings dated 28.04.2005 at Annexure-R1
to the statement of objections filed by the appellant
management.
56. The Probationary Mazdoors were entitled for fixation
of pay scale only after their absorption to the post of Junior
Lineman in the pay scale of Rs.3,125/- to Rs.6,575/-. At the
most, the services of the employees as Probationary Mazdoors
can only be considered for reckoning the length of service for
fixation of the pension upon their superannuation and not for
adoption of the old pension scheme. The entire argument of the
learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1 in Writ
Petition No.1254 of 2023 is to the effect that 7528 Gangmen
have been absorbed to the post of Junior Lineman prior to
01.04.2006 and therefore, they are all covered by the old
pension scheme. On a conjoint reading of the settlement dated
03.06.2004, communication of the Government dated
25.02.2004, the proceedings dated 28.04.2005 (Annexure-R1),
proceedings dated 06.11.2004 (Annexure-R2), there can be no

- 78 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


doubt that the conversion of Gangmen to the Probationary
Mazdoors did not have the effect of absorption. The effective
date of absorption is only when the Probationary Mazdoors
were absorbed to the post of Junior Lineman with the pay scale
attached to the said post i.e., Rs.3,125/- - Rs.6,575/-. On a
reading of the order impugned, we notice that the aforesaid
foundational facts, the effect of conversion and absorption has
neither been noticed nor considered.
57. Reliance is also placed by the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents on the decision of the Division
Bench of the High Court of Madras in K Punniyakoti (supra).
In the said case, the casual labourers engaged by IGCAR had
been conferred temporary status under the Casual Labourers
(Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1993,
with an express assurance under the office order dated
13.01.2000 that 50% of the service rendered under temporary
status would be counted for retirement benefits upon
regularisation. Further, out of the same batch of 50 casual
labourers, 34 had been regularised prior to the cut-off date,
and the remaining 16 could not be absorbed only for want of
vacancies. It was in that context that the Madras High Court

- 79 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


held that the said 16 employees could not be treated as fresh
appointees. However, in the instant case, orders of
appointment stipulate that service rendered on contract basis
shall not count for any purpose, including pension, and that the
appointees would be covered under the New Defined
Contributory Pension Scheme. The writ petitioners accepted
these conditions, executed agreements to that effect, and
suffered deductions towards NPS without any objection for over
seven years. Similarly, the Gangmen in Writ Appeal No.1254 of
2023 were absorbed under a separate order, only after
01.07.2006, on terms that expressly made the NPS applicable.
The said decision, therefore, is distinguishable on facts.
58. The delay in approaching this Court for the reliefs is
a matter assumes greater importance in the facts and
circumstances of the present case. Because, from the year
2007 onwards, the appellant KPTCL has been deducting 10% of
the basic pay and dearness allowance, even as on date. If a
direction is now issued to apply the old pension scheme, which
results in refund of the amounts, which has been deducted
since 2007 till now, i.e., almost 19 years. Such a direction for
refund of the amounts deducted, as stated supra, would

- 80 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


definitely dent the financial position of the appellant and would
have the effect of huge financial burden, which would
ultimately passed on to the consumers resulting in hike in the
tariff. If only the writ petitioners had approached this Court at
the earliest point of time, i.e., in the year 2007, when the
deduction of 10% of basic pay and dearness allowance was
commenced, the result would have been different. While
exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, which is extraordinary one, the public interest, so also,
the private interest will have to be balanced and in the present
case, the balance of convenience lies in favour of the appellant
in view of the long delay in approaching this Court by the writ
petitioners.
59. In the result;
(i) Writ Appeal Nos.1252 of 2023 and 1240 of 2023
are allowed.
(ii) The order dated 28.08.2023 passed in Writ Petition
No.32866 of 2017 and Writ Petition No.9774 of 2016 is set
aside.

- 81 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


(iii) Writ Appeal No.1254 of 2023 is disposed of by
modifying the order passed in Writ Petition No.13498 of 2021
clarifying that only such of the employees who have been
converted from the post of Gangmen to Probationary Mazdoors
and absorbed to the post of Junior Lineman with the pay scale
of Rs.3,125/- to Rs.6,575/- prior to 01.04.2006 alone are
entitled to be considered under the old pension scheme and all
other Gangmen who have been converted to the post of
probationary mazdoors with the pay scale of Rs.3,125/- to
Rs.6,575/- and the consequential absorption to the post of
Junior Lineman after 01.04.2006 are to be considered under
the new defined contributory pension scheme.
(iv) Upon conducting the exercise of identifying the
employees who are covered by old pension scheme and the
new pension scheme as observed above, the consequential
benefits payable to such of the employees who are covered by
old pension scheme will have to be paid/refunded within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified
copy of the judgment.

- 82 -
WA No. 1252 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1240 of 2023
WA No. 1254 of 2023


(v) The above directions are not only applicable to the
existing employees, but, it applies to the employees who have
attained the age of superannuation or who died either while in
service or post retirement.

Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(T.P.VIVEKANANDA)
JUDGE




BGN