- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36842-DB WA No. 992 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 992 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. THE MYSORE SUGAR COMPANY LTD., (GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SUGAR TOWN MANDYA - 571 402. …APPELLANT (BY SRI R. GIRISHKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI S.T. RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS S/O THAMME GOWDA R/AT NO. 352/B, 4TH MAIN GOKULAM 2ND STAGE OPP. TELEPHONE EXCHANGE MYSORE - 570 002. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.K. VASANTH, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SRIDEVI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36842-DB WA No. 992 of 2024 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU IN W.P No. 42674/2013 (S-RES) & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal, impugning an order dated 21.12.2023 [impugned order], passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.42674 / 2013 (S-RES). In terms of the impugned order, the appellant was directed to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amounts of Rs.96,796/- and Rs.99,433/- from 08.07.2011 and 09.06.2011 respectively, within one month from the date of said order. The respondent had filed the said writ petition [W.P.No.42674/2013], inter alia claiming that the appellant had not settled its claims for salary for the period from - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36842-DB WA No. 992 of 2024 01.01.1998 till 31.12.2000, amounting to Rs.96,796/- as ordered by an order dated 08.03.2011 passed in W.A.No.2652/2004 as well as the consequential benefits amounting to Rs.99,433/- as directed in terms of the order dated 09.06.2011 passed in W.P.No.45492/2003. During the course of the proceedings, the appellant had paid the aforesaid amounts. There is no direction in the impugned order for payment of the aforesaid amounts. Therefore, the appellant's grievance is confined to the direction to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the aforesaid sum. 2. It is material to note that the respondent had joined the services of the appellant as a Medical Officer on 04.08.1971. He had filed a writ petition being W.P.No.21084/2000, raising a grievance regarding fixation of his salary. He claimed that one Dr. M.L. Naganna was also working as an Assistant Medical Officer under the respondent, from 07.05.1975 possessing the qualifications of MBBS, CDP but was drawing a higher basic pay with effect from 01.01.1983. The said writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 11.02.2004. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent had preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court being W.A.No.2652/2004. The said appeal was allowed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36842-DB WA No. 992 of 2024 The Court found that the appellant had discriminated against the respondent by merely equating his remuneration with Dr. M.L. Naganna although he had throughout held a supervisory post of Medical Officer, as against a lower inferior post of Assistant Medical Officer held by Dr. M.L. Naganna. The Court held that the respondent was entitled to be placed in a higher scale as against Dr. M.L. Naganna. Accordingly, the court directed the appellant to approve an appropriate pay-scale of fixation of emoluments of the respondent with effect from August 1983. 3. Apparently, the said order was not complied with and the respondent preferred a contempt petition being CCC No.2245/2011. The said Contempt Petition was disposed of by an order dated 17.02.2012, whereby it was noted that the appellant had sent a letter setting out calculations of the amount of arrears payable to the respondent and enclosing therewith cheque for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- dated 09.02.2012 and another cheque of Rs.1,05,080/- dated 09.02.2012 towards full and final settlement of its claims. The appellant had not appeared before the court on 17.02.2012 and it was assumed that his grievance was addressed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36842-DB WA No. 992 of 2024 4. The respondent filed another writ petition being, W.P.No.45492/2003, impugning orders dated 30.09.2003 and 01.10.2003 passed by the appellant and further claiming that the respondent be treated to have been in service of the appellant / Company until the end of office hours of 31.12.2002. It was the respondent's case that the age of superannuation was 60 years and not 58 years. However, the said claim was rejected by the appellant and the appellant superannuated him from service at the age of 58 years. The respondent’s contention was accepted but in the meantime, the respondent’s age had increased beyond 60 years and he could not have been re-instated. The said writ petition was allowed by an order dated 09.06.2011. However, the Court did not grant the respondent's request for payment of salary but held that the interest of justice would be met if the two additional years of service which were unfairly denied to the petitioner are taken into account for payment of all consequential benefits. 5. The appellant claims that in compliance with the said orders, the consequential benefits that would arise, were calculated and a sum of Rs.54,462/- was paid towards the difference in gratuity and Rs.17,811/- was paid towards additional increments for the years - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36842-DB WA No. 992 of 2024 2001 and 2002 along with the difference in leave encashment benefits. Notwithstanding the above, the issue regarding calculation of arrears of salary as directed in terms of the order dated 08.03.2011 passed in W.A.No.2652/2004 as well as the order dated 09.06.2011 passed in W.P.No.45492/2003, continued to persist. According to the respondent, the amounts as calculated and paid by the appellant were less than the amounts payable to the respondent. In the aforesaid backdrop that the respondent filed the writ petition being [W.P.No.42674/2013] which has been disposed of in terms of the impugned order. 6. As noted above, the respondent claimed that arrears of salary to the extent of Rs.96,796/- and the consequential benefits amounting to Rs.99,433/- remained outstanding. During the course of the proceedings relating to the writ petition, the said amounts were paid. Thus, there is no dispute that the respondent was entitled to the said amounts in terms of the orders as mentioned above. Undeniably, there is an inordinate delay in payment of the amounts which the respondent was entitled to. In view of the above, the appellant's case that no interest is payable by it cannot be accepted. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36842-DB WA No. 992 of 2024 7. In Authorised Officer Karnataka Bank v R.M.S Granites Pvt Ltd & Ors : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4695, the Supreme Court had observed as under: "It may be mentioned that there is misconception about interest. Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal accretion on capital. For example if A had to pay B a certain amount, say ten years ago, but he offers that amount to him today, then he has pocketed the interest on the principal amount. Had A paid that amount to B ten years ago, B would have invested that amount somewhere and earned interest thereon, but instead of that A has kept that amount with himself and earned interest on it for this period. Hence, equity demands that A should not only pay back the principal amount but also the interest thereon to B." 8. In Dr Poornima Advani & Anr. Vs Government of NCT & Anr: 2025 INSC 262, the Supreme Court had referred to the concept of interest explained in Authorised Officer Karnataka Bank v R.M.S Granites Pvt Ltd & Ors (supra) and held as under: "17. Thus, when a person is deprived of the use of his money to which he is legitimately entitled, he has a right to be compensated for the deprivation which may be called interest or compensation. Interest is paid for - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36842-DB WA No. 992 of 2024 the deprivation of the use of money in general terms which has returned or compensation for the use or retention by a person of a sum of money belonging to other." 9. In view of the above, we find no infirmity with the impugned order. Notwithstanding that there may not be any statutory provision for payment of any interest, the fact that the respondent has been denied the amount due to him for an inordinately long period, would clearly warrant the respondent to be compensated with interest. 10. The appeal is unmerited and accordingly, dismissed. 11. Pending applications also stand disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE KS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24