IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.13951/2015 (S-KSRTC) Between:
Kumaraswamy R, S/o Ramaiah, 59 Years, R/at. Valmikinagar, Delux Woodlands, 1st Main, B.H.Road, Tumkur. …Petitioner (By Sri.T.A.Karumbaiah, Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka, Transport Department Vikasa Soudha, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Road, Bengaluru – 1.
By its Secretary.
2. The Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C, Central Office, Shanthinagar, Bengaluru.
3. The Managing Director, BMTC, Shanthinagar, Bengaluru.
4. The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C, Tumkur Division, Tumkur. ... Respondents (By Sri.A.C.Balaraj, HCGP for R-1; Smt.H.R.Renuka, Advocate R-2 to R-4) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash Annexure-G the endorsement dated 29.1.2015 and also Annexure-L the endorsement dated 18.2.2015 both issued by the R-4 and etc.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner served the respondent No.2 –Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, as a driver and took voluntary retirement on 21.01.2008. The petitioner served for a period of 26 years including 5 years in Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (for short ‘BMTC’). The grievance of the petitioner is that the beneficial scheme which is known as ‘Suraksha Soulabhya’ which is made applicable to the employees of the BMTC should also be extended to the petitioner since he served the BMTC for a period of five years.
2. The petitioner has earlier approached this Court along with two others in W.P.No.13772/2013 and connected matters which were disposed of on 07.08.2013. While disposing of the said Writ Petitions, this Court permitted the petitioner to make a representation and the respondents were directed to consider the same on merits, by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner herein made a representation along with the two others, on 23.08.2013. An endorsement dated 29.01.2015 was issued to the petitioner. However, the said endorsement was found to be ‘not a speaking order’ and therefore, during the pendency of the Contempt Petition filed by the petitioner, the respondents issued one more endorsement dated 18.02.2015, which is the subject matter of this Writ Petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are bound to extend the benefit under the Suraksha Soulabhya to the petitioner since he worked for a period of five years in BMTC. It was also submitted that at the time of appointment of the petitioner there was no such bifurcation as Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and BMTC.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent – Corporation, however justifies the impugned endorsement dated 18.02.2015. The learned counsel submits that the Suraksha Soulabhya Scheme in terms of Circular dated 23/24-09-2004 was issued by the Managing Director of BMTC and is therefore applicable only to the employees of the BMTC. When the Scheme itself was launched in 2004, making it applicable only to the employees of BMTC, the question of extending the same to an employee of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation does not arise. It is further submitted that as per the request of the petitioner, the best available Scheme was offered and the petitioner has taken benefit of the available Schemes in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation.
5. Having heard the learned counsels and perusing the Writ papers, it is found that the endorsement issued by the respondents is in accordance with law. The Scheme which was brought in by way of Circular dated 23/24-09-2004 was issued by the Managing Director of BMTC and only the employees of the BMTC are entitled to the benefit flowing out of the Circular. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has also worked in BMTC for a period of five years and therefore, the benefit should be extended to the petitioner, does not hold any water. The requirement under the Circular is that an employee of BMTC, in order to avail the benefit under the Suraksha Soulabhya, should have put in a minimum period of five years in the Corporation. This does not mean that an employee of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, if he had earlier served for a period of five years in BMTC, benefit should be extended to such an employee. Moreover, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, when the bifurcation between the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and BMTC took place on 15.08.1997, option was given to all the employees either to opt for the services under the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation or Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation. The petitioner having opted to serve with Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, he cannot now contend that he should be treated as an employee of BMTC since he served in BMTC for a period of five years.
6. In the light of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the petition and therefore, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE NS