KEB Employees Service Regulations| Proceedings Instituted By Third Party Do Not Fall Under Judicial Proceedings Permitting Employer To Withhold Pension: Karnataka HC

Interpreting the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees’ Service Regulations, the Karnataka High Court held that proceedings instituted by a third party cannot be construed to fall within the category of judicial proceedings permitting the employer to withhold the pension of the employee.

The Bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil, was hearing an appeal instituted by the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) against releasing the pension of a retired employee.

The Court observed that, "The word “institute” would refer to commencement of certain proceedings. The reference to proceedings instituted under Regulation 171 would imply that the proceedings must be instituted by the employer, that is the only manner of construing the power of withholding the pension, since the pension is a service condition between the employer and employee. If that were to be so, the judicial proceedings instituted by third party under the PC Act cannot be considered to be proceedings instituted under Regulation 171. Proceedings instituted by third party cannot be construed to fall within the category of judicial proceedings permitting the employer to withhold the pension of the employee."

Counsel Shirish Krishna appeared for the appellants, while Counsel Santosh B Malligawad appeared for the respondent.

In this case, a writ appeal was filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, challenging an order issued by a learned Single Judge. The appellant, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL), contested the order annulling the pension withholding decision and directing the corporation to release the entire pension to a retired employee. The retired employee had faced criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, leading to the corporation sanctioning only 50% provisional pension. The Single Judge, noting no pecuniary loss, quashed the decision. The corporation appealed before the Court.

The High Court perused Regulation 172 of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees’ Service Regulations, 1996, which pertains to the payment of provisional pension to an employee facing departmental or judicial proceedings initiated under Regulation 171.

It was further noted that proceedings Regulation 171 relate to pecuniary loss caused to the Board either in whole or part.

Subsequently, the Court noted that as on the date of attaining the age of superannuation, no judicial proceedings were pending against the petitioner. To that end, it was observed that, "In terms of Regulation 172, the reference to judicial proceedings and its pendency would take us to the explanation and as regards criminal proceedings, the same can be deemed to be instituted, is only on the date when the cognizance is taken. In the present case, the cognizance was taken on 6.8.2022 after he had retired from service on 31.05.2022. Though proceedings were instituted before the ACB even prior to the petitioner having retired, cognizance was taken subsequently."

Accordingly, the Court found no reason to interfere with the order of the Single Judge, as the appeal was dismissed.

Cause Title: Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. & Ors. vs Mallikarjun

Click here to read/download the Judgment