KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD BANGALORE Vs. S BHASKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) in these two writ appeals the karnataka electricity board ('the board' for short) has prayed for setting aside of the order passed by the learned single judge. In order to appreciate the grievance of the board against the said order a few relevant facts are required to be noted,

(2.) the respondents are the employees of the board. They were appointedas assistant engineers (elecl.) In the services of the board. At the time when they were appointed they were holding m.e. degree qualification. They joined the service of the board on 7-9-77 and 31-8-77 respectively. They had acquired m.e. qualification in september 1975 and january 1976 respectively. By an office order, dated 26th june, 1979 the board had decided to grant two advance increments to the assistant engineers (elecl.) Who after joining the services of the board had acquired master degrees or doctorate in electrical engineering. The order was to be effective from the date of issue. The contention of the respondents-writ petitioners was that the benefit of the said office order should have been made available to the respondents also as they were in service of the board on the date of issuance of the said office order. The said benefit, according to the respondents, could not be denied to them just because they had completed their post-graduation even before joining the services of the board. The learned single judge took the view that the controversies raised in the writ petitions were fully covered by judgment of this court in writ petition 17011 of 1986 disposed of on 16-1-1989 and as confirmed in writ appeal 788 of 1989. The learned single judge accordingly allowed the writ petitions in terms of the order in W.P. 17011 of 1986. The aforesaid common order of the learned single judge is now brought in challenge in these appeals.

(3.) learned counsel for the appellant/board raised the following contentions in support of the appeal: (1) the office order is dated 26th june, 1979 while the present respondents moved the writ petition in the year 1990 almost after 11 years. Therefore, the petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. (2) even on merits the petitions should have been dismissed as the division bench decision relied on by the learned single judge had no application to the facts of the present proceedings since it covered an entirely a different class of employees of the board viz.,typists and junior assistants. There was a note appended to the office order issued concerning the typists and junior assistants and there was no such note appended to the office order dated 26th june, 1979 covering the cases of assistant engineers. Therefore the decision of division bench in w.a. 788 of 1989 could not have been applied to the facts of the present proceedings. (3) the office order in question refers to granting of two advance increments to only those assistant engineers who acquire post-graduate degrees or doctorates after joining the services of the board and an order in such clear terms cannot be rewritten by court so as to cover the cases of the present respondents who had acquired post-graduate degrees even prior to joining the services of the board.