Holding

All employees who satisfy the conditions in the D.O. order dated 02‑06‑2008 are entitled to the additional 2% pay, irrespective of their service on 01‑04‑2003, but the 2% is payable only upon achievement of the prescribed performance targets.

Summary

The Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation issued departmental orders in 2006 and 2008 revising pay scales, including a 2% increment contingent on performance targets. Four employees appointed as Assistant Executive Engineers in 2007 sought the additional 2% despite not being in service on 1 April 2003. The Single Judge directed that the 2% be added to their basic pay from the date of appointment, a decision affirmed in part by the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the wording of the 2008 order and held that the 2% increment applies to all employees who meet the order's conditions, regardless of their service date, but it is not automatic and depends on achieving performance targets. Consequently, the Court quashed the directive to grant the 2% from the appointment date, directing that the increment be payable only upon meeting the stipulated targets. The appeal was therefore disposed of, modifying the lower courts' orders.

Issues considered

Whether employees appointed after 01-04-2003 are entitled to the additional 2% pay revision under the Departmental Order dated 02-06-2008.
Whether the additional 2% pay should be granted automatically from the date of appointment or subject to the performance‑target conditions stipulated in the order.

Subjects

service lawpay revisionadditional 2% incrementperformance targetsdepartmental ordersKarnataka Power Transmission Corporationappellate jurisdiction

Judgment

564 [2023]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 4 S.C.R. 564 [2023] 4 S.C.R.

A KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION
LIMITED & ORS.
v.
SRI. B. G. MANAMOHANA PRIYANKA & ORS.
B (Civil Appeal No. 2702 of 2023)
APRIL 28, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Service Law – Pay revision – Entitlement to – Held: On
conjoint reading of D.O./orders dated 27.09.2006 and 02.06.2008,
C
all those employees subject to fulfilment of the conditions mentioned
in D.O./order dated 02.06.2008 shall be entitled to the additional
2% in addition to the existing pay, irrespective of whether as on
01.04.2003 they were in service or not – Thus, the case on behalf
of the appellants that since the respondents-Assistant Executive
D Engineers (Electrical) were not appointed as on 01.04.2003 and
they were appointed subsequently in the year 2007, therefore, not
entitled to the additional 2% has no substance – However, the Single
Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court erred in directing
to revise the pay scale of the respondents by adding 2% to the basic
pay automatically that too from the date of their appointment –
E
Respondents shall be entitled to the additional 2% in addition to
the existing pay to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer
(Electrical), however, subject to the conditions as mentioned in the
D.O./order dated 02.06.2008, i.e. subject to achieving the
performance targets by the concerned officers.
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2702
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.02.2021 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in WA No.698 of 2020.
G K. M. Nataraj, ASG, Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, Venkita
Subramoniam T. R., Likhi Chand Bonsle, Ms. Komal Mundhar, Advs.
for the Appellants.
P V Surendranath, Sr. Adv., Biju P Raman, Sawan Kumar Shukla,
Ms. Lekha Sudhakar, Advs. for the Respondents.
H
564
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED v. 565
SRI. B. G. MANAMOHANA PRIYANKA

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka
at Bengaluru in Writ Appeal No. 698/2020, by which, the Division Bench
of the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the B
appellant(s) herein and has affirmed the judgment and order passed by
the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4667/2015, by which the
learned Single Judge directed payment of revised pay scales to the original
writ petitioners at the rate of Rs. 9,745/- basic pay per month with effect
from the date they entered into service, the Karnataka Power C
Transmission Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the
corporation) & Ors. have preferred the present appeal.
2. That the original writ petitioners – respondents herein were
appointed as “Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical)” in the appellant
– corporation on 06.10.2007. That their pay scale was Rs. 9,470 - 20,470/ D
- per month. That the appellant – corporation issued a D.O./order dated
27.09.2006 revising the pay scales with effect from 01.04.2003.
2.1 That thereafter, a further D.O./order was issued which
provided that with effect from 01.04.2003 by considering the hard work
of the employees to consider pay hike by 2%. It further provided that E
while sanctioning 2% hike in pay appropriate target may be fixed and
sanction may be obtained from the management. D.O./order dated
02.06.2008 was issued granting the approval for revision of pay scales
by 12% (10+2%) effecting from 01.04.2003. It further provided that
from 01.04.2009, the differential amount towards 2% pay revision may
be released after achieving the performance targets by the concerned F
officers. As the original writ petitioners were appointed in the year 2007,
they were not granted the benefit of additional 2% pay revision and
therefore, they filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge.
Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed to re-fix
their pay while extending revision of pay i.e., 10+2% = 12% which will G
be Rs. 9,745/- basic to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer
(Electrical). The benefit has been granted from the date of their
appointment. The learned Single Judge also awarded the interest @ 8%
on the arrears. The order passed by the learned Single Judge was the
subject matter of appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court.
H
566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R.

A By the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench has partly
allowed the appeal to the extent deleting the direction of the learned
Single Judge to pay interest on the arrears amount at 8% per annum
from 04.11.2020 till realization. However, the Division Bench has
confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge directing to add
12% in the basic pay and consequently, to revise the pay accordingly.
B
2.2 The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court is the subject matter of present appeal.
3. Heard Shri K.M. Nataraj, learned ASG appearing on behalf of
the appellant(s) and Shri P.V. Surendranath, learned Senior Advocate
C appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3.1 Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties and having gone through the relevant D.O./orders,
more particularly, D.O./orders dated 27.09.2006 and 02.06.2008, the
original writ petitioners though were appointed in the year 2007 shall be
D entitled to the benefit of revision of pay adding 12% in addition to the
existing pay to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical).
There is no dispute with respect to the addition of 10%. However, the
dispute is with respect to further addition of 2%. The case on behalf of
the appellant that as the original writ petitioners were appointed in the
year 2007 and thereafter, there were revision of pay and in fact they
E were to get the pay in the basic pay scale, they shall not be entitled to the
additional 2% has no substance. On conjoint reading of D.O./orders
dated 27.09.2006 and 02.06.2008, all those employees subject to fulfilment
of the conditions mentioned in D.O./order dated 02.06.2008 shall be
entitled to the additional 2% in addition to the existing pay, irrespective
F whether as on 01.04.2003 they were in service or not. Therefore, the
case on behalf of the appellant(s) that as they were not appointed as on
01.04.2003 and they were appointed subsequently in the year 2007 and,
therefore, not entitled to the additional 2% without doing the hard work
has no substance. However, at the same time, Shri Nataraj, learned
ASG appearing on behalf of the appellant(s) is justified in making the
G submission that the original writ petitioners shall not be entitled to the
additional 2% automatically and that too from the date of their initial
appointment. It is to be noted that even as per D.O./order dated
02.06.2008 while sanctioning 2% hike in pay appropriate target was
required to be fixed and accordingly, their sanction from the management
H for the said proposal was required to be obtained. From 01.04.2009, the
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED v. 567
SRI. B. G. MANAMOHANA PRIYANKA [M. R. SHAH]

differential amount towards 2% pay revision was required to be released A
after achieving the performance targets by the concerned officers and
their first appraisal was to be conducted in April, 2009 and the second
appraisal was to be conducted in April, 2010. Therefore, as such the
learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court have
materially erred in directing to revise the pay scale by adding 2% to the
B
basic pay automatically that too from the date of their appointment. It is
required to be noted that in the first year all the writ petitioners were
appointed as probationers and as per the Rules, as probationers they
were to be put in the minimum basic pay scale which at the relevant
time was Rs. 9,470/-
4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the C
present appeal succeeds in part. The order passed by the learned Single
Judge as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court directing to pay additional 2% in addition to the
existing pay to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) from
the date of their initial appointment is/are hereby quashed and set aside. D
It is observed and directed that the original writ petitioners shall be entitled
to the additional 2% in addition to the existing pay to the post of Assistant
Executive Engineer (Electrical), however, subject to the conditions as
mentioned in the D.O./order dated 02.06.2008, namely, subject to
achieving the performance targets by the concerned officers.
E
With this modification, the present appeal stands disposed of.

Divya Pandey Appeal disposed of.
(Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri and Roopanshi Virang, LCRAs)

F

G

H