KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION MYSORE DIVISION MYSORE BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER Vs. SPEENIVASASHETTY S/O MAYISHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is a delay of 160 days in filing Writ appeal No. 1022 of 2007. Being satisfied with the cause shown by the appellant, the delay is condoned. The Appellant -Corporation is challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 10467 of 2003 dated 6th November, 2006; Writ Petition. No. 13501 of 2003 dated 6th November, 2006; Writ Petition 18469 of 2003 dated 23rd November 2006 and Writ Petition No. 12012 of 2006 dated 21st November 2006, respectively. The grievance of the respondent -writ petitioners in the writ petition was that they were appointed as badli conductors. Later their services were confirmed by the appellant -Corporation and while confirming their services, their claim for entitlement of time -scale pay on completion of 180 days from the date of their initial appointment; and to calculate their service for the purpose of terminal and pensionary benefits in respect of their initial entry into service, has not been taken into consideration. The learned Single Judge, relying upon the judgment of another learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petitions No. 25985 -25986 of 1986 dated 2nd March 1998, which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 606 -610 of 1999 vide order dated 18th July 2001, allowed the writ petition of the respondents in part. Accordingly, it is held by the learned Single Judge that the respondents are entitled for time -scale of pay on completion of 180 days from the date of initial appointment on 16th March 1976 and further held that their initial entry into service and the number of years of service shall be taken into account for the purpose of calculating terminal/pensionary benefits payable to the employees. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, these appeals are preferred.

(2.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Judge, while allowing the writ petition granting prayer No. 1, did not consider the order passed in Writ Petitions No. 25985 -25986 of 1986, which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, because in the aforesaid writ petition, time -scale of pay on completion of 180 days, has been specifically denied to the employees. But, the learned Single Judge, in the instant case, without properly looking into the aforesaid portion of the order has wrongly granted the relief. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant requests this Court to allow the writ appeals filed by the appellant -Corporation.