- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15646-DB WA No. 944 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO.944 OF 2022 (S-DIS) BETWEEN: SRI. ANJANAPPA BALLAGERE S/O LATE HONNAPPA GANGAPPA R/O. NO.310, 11TH MAIN 7TH A CROSS, M.E.I. LAYOUT BAGALAGUNTE, HESARAGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE 560 073. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHIVARAMA BHAT O, ADV.,) AND: 1. MYSURU ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES LTD TUMKUR ROAD, BANGALORE REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE MANAGER (PERSONNEL AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS) MYSORE ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES TUMKUR ROAD BANGALORE-560022. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VISWANATH SABARAD, ADV., FOR R1 R2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15646-DB WA No. 944 of 2022 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.08.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT IN WP No.38962/2010 (S-DIS) BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL WITH THE COSTS THROUGH OUT AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEF'S AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This appeal is filed by the appellant/writ petitioner against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.38962/2010. 2. It is submitted that the writ petition had been filed challenging Annexure-H/Order dated 09.10.2010 as well as Annexures-K/memo and Annexure-M/letter, by which the claim raised by the appellant/petitioner for re- fixation of his pay taking note of the period of compulsory retirement as service was declined by the respondents. It is submitted that the appellant/petitioner, who was an - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15646-DB WA No. 944 of 2022 employee of the respondent - company, was imposed with the penalty of compulsory retirement from service by order dated 12.08.2003. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed. Thereafter, he approached this Court by filing W.P.No.5755/2004, which came to be allowed on 18.08.2009. The order of penalty as well as the appellate order was quashed. The learned Single Judge further held as under: "The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner to the post held by him as on 12.08.2003 and he would be entitled to 30% of the backwages or arrears of salary upto the date of such reinstatement. He would further be entitled to count this period for his service benefits." The respondents were also held at liberty to hold a fresh enquiry on the alleged charges brought against the petitioner, if it so warranted. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15646-DB WA No. 944 of 2022 3. It is submitted that the said judgment was subjected to a challenge before the Division Bench and later before the Apex Court but the Writ Appeal as well as Special Leave Petition came to be dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner was again kept under suspension by order dated 09.10.2010 and a further enquiry was held and an order of demotion was passed as against the appellant. The appellant/petitioner, thereafter, sought backwages and grant of increment, as also, promotions since his juniors were promoted during the period when the petitioner had been kept out of service. The requests made by the appellant were rejected by Annexure- K/memo dated 09.10.2010 and Annexure-M dated 09.11.2010. It is contended that a detailed statement of calculation was forwarded to the appellant along with Annexure-M/letter. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that apart from granting 30% backwages, none of the other benefits taking the period from 12.08.2003 to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15646-DB WA No. 944 of 2022 the date of reinstatement as period spent on duty had been reckoned for fixing the pay of the appellant. The respondents raised a contention that the writ petitioner had not worked for the period from 12.08.2003 onwards and that therefore, he was not entitled for any of the consequential benefits. It was contended that the entire amounts as was due to the appellant/writ petitioner had already been paid to him. 5. The learned Single Judge accepted the contention that 30% of the backwages had been calculated and paid to the petitioner. It was further found that the calculation of backwages would indicate that the petitioner's salary as on 12.08.2003 was Rs.12,845/- which included Basic Pay, DA, HRA, CCA & CA and 30% of the said amount was taken as backwages as directed. It was further found that the Basic Pay as on 01.08.2010 is fixed at Rs.18,150/-, notionally granting increment from 2003 to 2010. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, would contend that the finding of the learned Single Judge - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15646-DB WA No. 944 of 2022 that the Basic Pay of the petitioner as on 01.08.2010 was fixed notionally granting increment from 2003 to 2010 was clearly incorrect. Further, it is submitted that there were pay revisions which had occurred in 2005 & 2010 and the said pay revisions had not been taken into account at all for notionally fixing the pay of the petitioner as on 01.08.2010. It is further submitted that the annual increment due to the petitioner was also not been taken into account. Further it is contended that the increase in the personal pay was liable to be protected i.e., at the rate of 10.5% of the Basic Pay, as per the pay revision order dated 28.04.2007. This has also been not made available to the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the direction in the earlier round of litigation was specifically only to pay 30% of backwages or arrears of salary to the petitioner up to the date of reinstatement. It is, therefore, contended that the 30% of the wages as was drawn by the petitioner as - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15646-DB WA No. 944 of 2022 on 12.08.2003 has already been granted and that therefore, nothing further remains to be done. It is further contended that the pay of the writ petitioner had been fixed by the communication dated 21.12.2005 as Rs.7,200 +100 as on 12.08.2003 and the said communication was not under challenge in the writ petition. It is further contended that the liberty having been reserved to the respondents to conduct fresh proceedings as against the petitioner, he was placed under suspicion in 2010 and fresh disciplinary proceedings had also been taken against him imposing the punishment of demotion by the order dated 16.08.2010. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner not having worked for the period from 12.08.2003 till the date of his reinstatement in 2010, would not entitled to any further amounts in accordance with law. 7. We have considered the contentions advanced on either side. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15646-DB WA No. 944 of 2022 8. It is clear that the order imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement as well as the order passed in the statutory appeal filed thereafter, had been quashed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation i.e., in W.P.No.5755/2004. The learned Single Judge had also directed the reinstatement of the petitioner to the post held by him as on 12.08.2003 with 30% of the backwages or arrears of salary up to the date of such reinstatement. It was also directed that the said period i.e., from 12.08.2003 till the date of reinstatement, would be counted as service. The only logical outcome of such a direction would be that the petitioner would be entitled to a notional re-fixation of his pay taking note of the period from 12.08.2003 till the date of his reinstatement also as service. If that be so, the benefits of pay revisions which have been occurred during the period i.e., between 12.08.2003 and the date of reinstatement, would also have been taken into account to reckon the pay to be fixed in respect of the writ petitioner. It is the specific case of the writ petitioner that there were pay revisions effected - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15646-DB WA No. 944 of 2022 with effect from 2005 in 2007 and later with effect from 2010 in 2012. The said two pay revisions having occurred during the period when the petitioner was kept out of service by an order of compulsory retirement which was quashed by this Court and upheld by the Apex Court, we are of the opinion that the direction contained in the judgment of the learned Single Judge that the said period is to be counted for service benefits is to mean that the said period will be treated as duty for the purpose of counting his service as duty. 9. In the above said factual background, we are of the opinion that the contention raised by the respondents that the appellant/writ petitioner is entitled to fixation of pay only taking note of the actual pay drawn by him as on 12.08.2003 and without reckoning the enhancements which occurred due to pay revisions, as also, the annual increments, which were due to him, cannot be accepted as the correct proposition. In view of the fact that the learned Single Judge has clearly directed that the period from - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:15646-DB WA No. 944 of 2022 12.08.2003 to the date of reinstatement needs to be counted as service for service benefits, we are of the opinion that the appellant/writ petitioner would be entitled to such benefits as well. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the learned Single Judge requires interference to that limited extent. With regard to fixation of notional pay of the petitioner taking note of the period from 12.08.2003 to the date of reinstatement as service, the respondents are duty bound to recalculate the amount payable to the petitioner taking note of the said period also as duty and granting him all benefits which he would have been entitled to had he continued in service. We clarify that this is for the purpose of notional fixation of pay and for no other purpose. Though the learned counsel for the appellants made an impassioned plea for interest on the amounts remaining unpaid, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, we are of the view that this is not a fit case for awarding of interest. Hence, we pass the following: - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:15646-DB WA No. 944 of 2022 ORDER i. The appeal is allowed-in-part. ii. The judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 27.08.2021 in W.P.No.38962/2010 insofar as the payments of amounts due to the appellant shall stand set aside, Annexures-H, K & M - order, memo & letter respectively, which were under challenge before the learned Single Judge, shall also stand set aside. There will be a direction to the respondents to grant the petitioner the benefits of notional fixation of pay taking note of the period from 12.08.2003 till the date of reinstatement, on the strength of Annexure-A judgment, as duty. The necessary re-calculation shall be carried out and the amounts due shall be disbursed to the writ petitioner within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The appellant/writ petitioner shall also place a - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:15646-DB WA No. 944 of 2022 calculation statement before the appropriate authority of the respondents for its consideration for this purpose. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2