The Karnataka High Court on Monday held that KPTCL employees who joined the department after 1997 are 'not entitled' for free supply of power. A division bench, headed by Justice K. Sreedhar Rao, passed the orders by dismissing an appeal by the KPTCL Employees Union, challenging a single-judge order dismissing the petition.
The electricity board in 1984 had extended the benefit of free power supply for domestic purpose to all the workmen subject to certain conditions. But in 1997, the corporation amended the Karnataka Electricity Board Recruitment and Promotion of Employees of the Board Service Regulations, prescribing qualification to the post of Junior Assistants and Assistant Lineman and also denial of free power supply to future employees. The union approached the court, arguing that denying the benefit to those who joined after 1997 is discriminative and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The bench upheld the orders of the single judge: “The employees who joined the corporation before 1997 are different from those who joined the department after 1997.” The court held that denying free power supply is neither discriminatory nor violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The KPTCL argued before the court that the Union cannot agitate for the rights of free power supply to all workmen. “Under Section 79(c) of the Electricity Supply Act, the corporation is empowered to amend the regulations governing the service conditions of the employees,” it argued.
HC Notice to state over Upper Bhadra project
The high court on Monday issued notices to state government, Karnataka Neeravari Nigama (Upper Bhadra Project) and few others following a PIL alleging the project as unscientific. The petitioner, H.S. Neelakantappa, from Chikmagalur sought supply of drinking water to Turuvekere and Kadur taluks. “The project intends to lift 21.5 TMC of water from the Bhadra dam in order to provide irrigation to Chitradurga, Chickkaballapur, Kolar and Tumkur though the state has awarded 10 TMC of water from the Upper Bhadra project,” petitioner states.