IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR W. P. No.17438/2015 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN GANGAHANUMAIAH S/O HANUMAIAH AGE 76 YEARS R/O SANNAPPANAPALYA HIREHALLI POST TUMKUR TALUK .. PETITIONER (BY SRI. GANGAHANUMAIAH-PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE K.H.ROAD, BANGALORE-560027 ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA-ADV) * * * THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 4.3.2014 ANNEXURE-B OF THE RESPONDED.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING-B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the petitioner party-in-person and learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The petitioner party-in-person is before this court calling in question the endorsement dated 04.03.2014 whereby the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of interest on the difference of gratuity amount as decided by this court and confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court with interest calculated @ 10%.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that while several others have been paid interest @ 10% his claim for treatment on parity has been rejected and the same is illegal and arbitrary.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that several employees of the transport corporation approached this court with writ petitions which came to be allowed and aggrieved by the same, the corporation preferred a Writ Appeal and a Division Bench of this court while disposing off the Writ Appeal was pleased to direct the payment of interest @ 6% to the petitioners, on the difference of gratuity amount payable from the date of filing of writ petition till payment.
5. Aggrieved, some of the respondents/petitioners in the writ appeal moved the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court while disposing off the writ appeal Nos.2059-2115/2013 in SLP (C) Nos.33440-33496/2010 was pleased to order as follows:-
“4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis. We are of the opinion that the judgment and order passed by the High Court requires a little tinkering by us. In our view, the appellants are entitled for payment of interest at the rate of 10 per cent on the difference of gratuity amount payable from the date of their entitlement.
“6. We make it clear that this order shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case.”
6. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner party-in-person was not an appellant before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court while granting the relief by modifying and holding that the appellants are entitled to an enhanced rate of interest @ 10% on the difference of gratuity amount payable and it further directed that the interest calculated from the date of entitlement. The petitioner had not filed any writ petition, but had got himself impleaded in the writ appeal preferred by the Corporation. He has also not approached the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly directed that the relief granted cannot be acted upon as a precedent. The petitioner has not called in question the order of the Division Bench. The order of the Division Bench awarding interest @ 6% has become final.
7. In that view of the matter, there is no illegality or irregularity touching the endorsement. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.
SS-CT Chs Sd/- JUDGE