-1-
IN Ti-IE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BARGALQQE
DATED THIS THE 3rd mw 09 JULY, 2oe9_MI7
BEFORE
THE HOWBLE MRJUSTICE
= I
1 SRI SHIVANNA, ' ,
s/0 LATE BETTEGOWDA';
AGED man? 5: was -- _ .
RETIRED MECHANIC emzxaeaii '- ; t
0/0 "ma Exacasme ENGEN.1EER(ELE:"C~)VV
MESCOM,CI1'Y_SsUE§-DIVISIQN, _ '
MANDYA,'& RzA~:>upDA..vI_UAGe:», ' »
MANOYA frAI:uI<, 3. o'Is=;m'I»:.::: .
2 SRI"M.SHIVASWAMY,'I» _ ' __
s/0 LATE " "
AGED ABCBUT 52 was'.
Rmaeo 31152103 Assvxsvmr
3 we we I':xEc_II'mre ENGINEER (ELEC),
I. ___M~E$,£IC}I'-fi, cm' SU--'.3--------D'IV§SION,
« . MANEJYA, R/A D.N{}.3852/"IA,
..15'--vMA~Ihf«ROAD, 1" CRQ$S,
Gnmnazrmsarg, masons.
3 ' _ sax. P,¥Vi;?UTTASWAMAfAH,
VSIC}-._SRI.MAL}.ESHAIAH,
AI?-IEDABOUT 53 YEARS,
RETZSEEJ JUNIOR ENGENEER,
" = '<3/<3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGENEER {ELECL
. _ EESCDM, was? DIVISION,
" 3A£\I<5AI.0RE, Rm NO. 76, 29:9 MAIN
IST BLQCK, NAGASANDRA ROAD
BANGALORE - 560073 PETTBONERS
{Bv Sré N.DEVARi5.3, ADV.)
...3..
superannuation during the period from 1.4.2603
31.3.2006. After their retirement, they have
pension orders from the respondent--Corporetio:nV.'it i'._is3V'
contended that though the respondent
Corporation, it foiiows the Rides end Rep’u«!ation.sV–‘.rri:a’de i?.’§y”* V’
the state Government in ~of””‘i§ensi§onorV
benefits of its empioyeees;”:it_ is that the
Corporation has entered settiemeni:
on 25.9.2006 ‘giiithA1V..:.1″thei<oi'n'éta'iee'i"':.Poiiver' Transmission
Corporation revision of pay
scales matters. Similar
revision offlpayt soa.iesA'–i§e–re""recommended in regard to
famiiy g;ensioni"'oft4:hose'irvn'o have retired or died whiie in
hpservioe On the recommendation of the
Government of Karnataka issued an
orcier=-..__dated revising the pension and family
"*'z–Ti."v'f.penAsion orthe empioyees of the State Government. Aiiter
'eettianent, the Corporation has revised the pay scales
':.V'j'*'V'ofv___the pensioners w.e.f. 1.4.2003 vide order dated
27.9.2006. In pursuance of the said order, the Corporation
has extended 10% interim relief to the pensioners after
it
4.
-4…
examining ail aspects on 4.11.2006. It is further
contended that the respondent without appiicationwofyV:ri’tiri–ti”-.,
has divided the aforecited order into two ”
orders dated 31.8.2002? Le. sanction’i’nu«.1’7′.’5%§o”
emoioyees who have retired
71% D.A. and secondiy, to thoe.j’%:’emptoye¢5oVV;¢tiredi’r’afier
1.4.2003, the Corporatioehas_igi’sVoijed”to. saoct:ooti 17.5%
whereas 71% of D.A. In partial
modification of :Aorder;:’ti’a”teti} Corporation
has awarded; pension, family
pension,:\etc.,’ ‘i’herefore, petitioners have
flied a repr”e’serit;atioriR7os’ Annexure ‘L’ to settie their
_….ciaime.{:i’h iac.cordénoe_with iaw. Since the respondent has
A’~V_hotjV’coh3ioerett-the same, petitioners have fiied this writ
petition’ direction to the resoondent to pay
V.v17.5°}ts’ the_ basic pension/famiiy pension to the
who retired between 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2oo5.
dominate also sought for a direction to the respondent to
T tfcorisider their raareserttation at Annexure ‘L’ to meet the
it it “ends of justice.
-5…
2. I have heard the teamed Counsei for the parties,
3. In their representation at Annexure ‘
have raised simiiar contentions. not Kt’
considered the said representationltfil (fete;
the View that the respondenbt–.v:v:hes to”‘r:on5§der
representation in accordance with Vitewwtthint 3’ tirnerrame.
4. Therefore; 1_dir;_e'<":t'tite consider the
representation "at;3;e;:Vnéi(§2.re–V.._'Lf" eooordance with iaw
within a pegriodm of frorntthe date of receipt of
a copy of thie order:VV_.ItAZ.tjVi.-atireretvy ciarified that this order
should n:;t..be understoodeswékpressing any opinion on the
'rneréts matter oneway or the other.
Sci!-3′:
Iudgé