The Aryavarth Express
Aryavarth(Bengaluru): The Karnataka High Court recently delivered a significant judgment upholding the pension rights of retired employees of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL), a public sector undertaking of the Government of Karnataka. The court dismissed a series of appeals filed by KPTCL challenging an earlier Single Judge order that directed the corporation to grant additional annual increments and pension benefits to retired employees.
The Single Judge had ruled in favor of the retired employees, ordering KPTCL to “re-fix the salary of the petitioners by granting them the additional annual increment, and consequentially, also refit and pay their pension along with the arrears of salary and pension accrued so far, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
KPTCL’s senior counsel argued for overturning the Single Judge’s order, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in KPTCL vs. C.P.MUNDINAMANI (2023), which they claimed had the effect of prospective overruling and was a judgment in personam, binding only the parties involved. They also contended that the writ petitions should have been dismissed due to delay, latches, and acquiescence, and that employees holding different positions could not have filed a single petition.
However, the High Court rejected these arguments, emphasizing that KPTCL, as a wholly-owned government entity, falls under the definition of ‘State’ in Article 12 of the Constitution and cannot act as a private employer. The court held that a Welfare State should treat its retired employees with care and extend benefits granted by the courts to similarly situated individuals without requiring them to litigate separately.
The High Court also clarified that the Supreme Court’s decision in B.C.NAGARAJ AND ANOTHER vs. STATE Of KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (2023) did not preclude extending benefits to similarly placed employees, as long as concluded cases were not reopened. The doctrine of prospective overruling was deemed inapplicable in this case, as it pertains to constitutional jurisprudence and not service law matters.
Addressing the issue of delay and latches, the court noted that such grounds cannot be used to deny legitimate claims of vulnerable groups like pensioners, particularly when no third-party rights are involved. The court emphasized that KPTCL, as a model employer, should not resist providing rightful benefits to its long-serving retired employees.
Lastly, the High Court dismissed the argument that employees holding different positions could not file a joint petition, citing the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977, which allow for common petitions when petitioners have similar but distinct interests and pay the required court fees.
The court concluded by advising against the practice of citing numerous decisions of the same court or the Supreme Court on the same legal proposition, as it unnecessarily prolongs judgments and overwhelms the doctrine of precedent. The High Court upheld the Single Judge’s order and directed KPTCL to extend the benefits to the retired employees within the stipulated timeframe.
