IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.2463 OF 2015 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN:
G.M.Poovaiah, S/o Late G.K.Madaiah, Aged about 54 years, R/a Rangasamudra, Somvarpet Taluk, Kodagu District. ... Petitioner (By Sri.M.C.Basavaraju, Advocate) AND:
1. The Managing Director, KSRTC, Central Offices, K.H.Road, Shanthi Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 027.
2. The Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Bangalore Central Division, K.H. Road, Shanti Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 027.
3. The Chief Accounts Officer, And Administrative Officer, KSRTC, Central Offices, K.H.Road, Shantinagar, Bengaluru – 560 027. ... Respondents (By Smt. H.R.Renuka, Advocate) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned endorsement dated 27.11.2014 issued by the R-2 vide Annexure – D to the W.P. and the impugned circular/letter dated 10.05.2011 issued by the R-3 vide Annexure – E to the writ petition and etc.
This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group, this day, the court made the following:
ORDER The short grievance of the petitioner, a poor driver in the respondent– KSRTC relates to denial of allowances admissible for the over time job done by him.
2. After service of notice, the respondent – KSRTC, having entered appearance through its learned Sr. Panel Counsel resist the writ petition banking upon a circular dated 10.05.2011, a copy whereof is at Annexure – E which reads as under:
“C¢üPÀ CªÀ¢ü ¨sÀvÉå (J¸ïNn/J£ïJ¸ïNn) ºÉZÀÄѪÀj ªÉÃvÀ£À, ¥ÀæAiÀiÁt ¨sÀvÉå. ¸ÀªÉÃvÀ£À gÀeÉ ¨sÀvÉå EªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ GzÉÆåÃVUÀ¼À C¹ÜgÀ (Variable) ºÁUÀÆ ¤¢ðµÀÖ¥Àr¸ÀzÀ (Unspecified) UÀ½PÉAiÀiÁUÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ªÀåvÁå¸ÀzÀ ¥ÁªÀw ªÁåSÁå£ÀzÀ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ°è §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀªÀgÉ®ègÀÆ F §UÉÎ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸ÀĪÀAvÉ w½¸À¯ÁVzÉ.”
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, relief needs to be granted to the petitioner for the following reasons:-
a) it is not in dispute that the petitioner during the relevant period had put in over time service in the onerous job of driving; his claim for the grant of over time allowance is rejected quoting the aforesaid Circular, which does not have force of law, nor justification; a legal claim of an employee cannot be negatived by quoting such a Circular;
(b) the right of an employee to the monetary gains of over time service has proprietary character; withholding the amount payable therefor amounts to acquiring property sans compensation; therefore, the same is violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India;
(c) extracting services from an employee without paying the remuneration therefor amounts to begar prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution of India; the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarath 1998 7 SCS 392 has recognized even the right of sentence serving prisoners to wages for the work done in the prison; that being the Nation’s Jurisprudence, denial of over time allowance falls foul of Article 23; and, (d) the impugned Circular has a strange reason for denying the over time allowance, namely, the same is variable depending upon over time work done by the employee; what is lost sight of by the respondent – Management is that, the amount payable for the over time job, is ascertainable and therefore, the variability spoken of by the Circular offends law reason & logic.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; the impugned Circular and the order are quashed; the respondent is mandamussed to consider and grant the allowance to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks.
If delay in obeying the mandamus is brooked, first respondent shall be liable to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner in addition to amount payable as allowance and that the same may be recovered from the erring officials.
Now, no costs.
Sd/- JUDGE MH/-/Bsv