Pensioners Are In The Evening Of Life After Long & Spotless Service, Welfare State Expected To Treat Them With Soft Gloves: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has said that Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) being a cent per cent public sector undertaking of the Government of Karnataka, falls within the definition of 'State' under Article 12, and an employer in a Welfare State is expected to treat pensioners with soft gloves since they are in the evening of life, having retired after putting in a long & spotless service during their productive years.

A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed an appeal filed by the Corporation challenging the order of the single judge bench which directed it to re-fix the salary of the petitioners by granting them the additional annual increment, and consequently, also refit and pay their pension along with the arrears of salary and pension accrued

The Corporation referred to the Apex Court's decision in KPTCL vs. C.P.Mundinamani (2023) wherein similar relief was granted to the employees and argued that it has the effect of the doctrine of prospective overruling and therefore, no benefit could have been granted to the employees that have retired earlier.

Further, it was stated that the said decision of the Apex Court is a judgment in personam and therefore, binds only parties to the suit and not others. That being the position, it was argued that it could not have been treated as a judgment in rem and therefore, no relief could have been granted to other employees in the writ petitions.

Moreover, it was argued that the petitions ought to have been dismissed because of delay & latches and acquiescence since they would defeat equity. The petitioners holding different posts/positions could not have maintained one single petition and this aspect of the matter has not been duly treated by the learned Single Judge, it was stated.

Referring to the Apex court judgment cited by the corporation, the court noted that the said matter was dismissed 'directing the Appellant Corporation to grant one annual increment which the original writ petitioners earned on the last day of their service for rendering their services preceding one year from the date of retirement with good behaviour and efficiency'.

It then said “There is nothing that indicates that grant of relief was confined to the employees who were parties to the said decision eo nomine. It has been long settled in the realm of Service Jurisprudence that when Constitutional Courts grant relief to an employee in his individual case, other employees need not rush to the court corridor once again to litigate.”

Further, it said “The employer which answers the description of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution, on its own has to extend the same benefit to all other similarly circumstanced employees. This is what employment in a 'Welfare State' means. An argument to the contrary would render the word 'socialist' enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution, a meaningless rhetoric. This inarticulate premise has animated the impugned judgments.”

Refusing to accept the contention of the doctrine of prospective overruling, the bench said that the doctrine is a judicial invention to ensure that a subsequent decision would not cause prejudice to the citizens by unsettling the settled positions that have been structured based on earlier judicial views or position of law and that there was no need to invoke the said doctrine in the present case, which was founded on the norm of service law.

Rejecting the contention of delay and latches the court said that an Article 12 entity like the appellant-corporation cannot resist a legitimate claim of citizens on the ground of delay & latches.

"It is not that the impugned judgments that award a small sum by way of increment would jolt the budgetary position of the corporation. Heavens will not fall down if it shells out a few pennies that are due to the writ petitioners who have served for long,” it said.

It also rejected the contention that the petitioners were holding different posts and therefore could not have been treated as one single class. It said “The grant of increment ordinarily does not depend on the posts, the same being a matter of accrual on yearly basis in favour of all classes of employees in public service. One may be an officer and another may be a member of sub-staff; the rate of increment may vary but not its entitlement as such. No rule or ruling has been cited before us to demonstrate the contra, except making vociferous submissions.”

Before parting, the court took exception to the practice of citing a bunch of decisions of the Apex Court or the same High Court on the same proposition of law and urged parties to avoid it to save public time & energy with which the courts work.

Accordingly, it dismissed the appeals.

Appearance: Advocate Aswathappa D for Appellants

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 159

Case Title: The Managing Director Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited & Others and L Mallikarjunappa

Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 133/2024 (S-R) C/W WRIT APPEAL NOs. 140/2024 (S-RES), 46/2024(S-RES), 1551/ 2023 (S-RES), 1546/2023 (S-RES), 1545/2023 (S-RES), 1532/2023 (S-RES), 1531/2023 (S-R), 1523/2023 (S-R), 1518/2023 (S-RES), 1431/2023 (S-RES), 136/2024 (S-RES)

Click Here To Read/Download Order