- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25102 WP No. 31824 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 31824 OF 2014 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN: SRI MALLAPPA, S/O SRI PUTTAMALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/A CHEEKANAHALLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, DISTRICT MANDYA. …PETITIONER (BY SMT MANJULA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI V S NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: THE WORKS MANAGER, KSRTC, REGIONAL WORKSHOPS, KENGERI, BANGALORE - 560 060. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE RESPONENT PERTAINING TO ANN-E & F QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 17.9.2011 VIDE ANN-F, SINCE THE SAME IS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND VIOLATIVE OF RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ETC THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE Digitally signed by BELUR RANGADHAMA NANDINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25102 WP No. 31824 of 2014 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the endorsement dated 17.09.2011 issued by respondent/Corporation denying to re-fix the petitioner's pay scale. Petitioner has also sought writ of mandamus to give effect to order dated Nil.01.2010 marked at Annexure-D. 2. The petitioner was subjected to domestic enquiry. He was imposed a penalty of dismissal from service which was assailed before the Labour Court. The Labour Court passed an award in favour of the petitioner directing the reinstatement by setting aside the dismissal from service. 3. The Labour Court directed reinstatement with continuity of service without backwages. No order is specifically passed on 'consequential benefits'. 4. The respondent/Corporation assailed the said award in W.P. No.18359/2005. The same was allowed in part and the award is modified as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25102 WP No. 31824 of 2014 "Accordingly, while modifying the order of the Labour Court, it is ordered, while maintaining the order of reinstatement with continuity of service only for the purpose of terminal benefits, three increments with cumulative effect be withheld. Petition is allowed in part." 5. The petitioner filed a review petition No.220/2009 and the said petition was allowed and the operative portion of the order passed in writ petition is modified and in paragraph No.3 of the said order in the review petition, this Court has held as under:- "3. Therefore, it is modified by deleting the words "for the purpose of terminal benefits" and adding the words "but, without back wages". 6. Later, the petitioner claims that the respondent implemented the order with some errors in the sense, instead of deducting 3 increments from the date of reinstatement in the year 2005, 3 increments were deducted for the year 2009, 2010 and 2011 which is contrary to the order passed by this Court and pay was fixed and later in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25102 WP No. 31824 of 2014 terms of impugned endorsement at Annexure-E, the earlier pay fixation vide Annexure-D was cancelled and petitioner's pay was reduced from Rs.9,982/- to Rs.8,280. It is submitted that this refixation is without notice to the petitioner and at the fag end of the petitioner's tenure. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent/Corporation should have granted the consequential benefit and by adding that component the pay should have been fixed. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation would contend that the consequential benefit was denied by the Labour Court and was neither granted by this Court in Writ Petition nor in the Review Petition. 9. To substantiate the contention that consequential benefit like increment is not available to the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent would rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. vs K.P. Agrawal and Another1 and also the judgment of 1 (2007) 2 SCC 433 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25102 WP No. 31824 of 2014 the Division Bench of this Court in writ appeal No.16714/2011. Referring to these judgments, it is urged that in case the award is silent on the relief of consequential benefit, the one should not assume that such consequential benefit is granted. 10. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 11. It is not in dispute that the Labour Court in its award in favour of the petitioner directed reinstatement without backwages and continuity of service did not specifically provide for consequential benefits. Award passed by the Labour Court came to be modified in the writ petition filed by the respondent/Corporation wherein, initially this Court granted continuity of service only for the purpose of terminal benefits and withheld 3 increments with cumulative effect. 12. Later, in the review petition filed by the petitioner, the operative portion of the order passed by this Court in the Writ Petition is modified and the expression "for - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25102 WP No. 31824 of 2014 the purpose of terminal benefits" was deleted and the expression "but, without backwages" was added. Again, it is noticed from the aforementioned order that this Court did not grant "consequential benefits". The ratio laid down in the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, supra, does apply to the facts of the case. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent/Corporation has not assigned the reasons as to why the pay scale is reduced. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the pay scale should be fixed by implementing the order in writ petition and review petition in its letter and spirit. And had it been done so, the respondent/Corporation had to deduct the increments for the year 2005, 2006 and 2007 and not thereafter. However, the increments of the year 2005 to 2007 were granted and the increments for the years of 2009 to 2011 were deducted. This fact is not in dispute. The deduction of increment in the year 2009, 2010 and 2011 has - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25102 WP No. 31824 of 2014 prejudicially affected the petitioner's interest and same is contrary to the order passed by this Court. 14. Under these circumstances, the respondent/ Corporation is required to deduct the increments for the year 2006, 2007 and 2008 and then it should grant the increments for the year 2009, 2010 and 2011 and thereafter. For this reason, there has to be a fresh exercise to fix the pay scale. 15. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is allowed in- part. (ii) The impugned endorsement dated 17.09.2011 at Annexure-F is quashed. (iii) Respondent/Corporation shall re-fix petitioner's pay scale by deducting the increments for the year 2006, 2007 and 2008 and to re-fix the pay scale by granting the increments for the year 2009, 2010 and 2011. (iv) After this exercise, if arrears are required to be paid to the petitioner, the same shall be - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25102 WP No. 31824 of 2014 paid within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45