1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayer:

In W.P. 103519/2023

"(a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other order or direction in the nature of writ directing the Respondents to fix and pay the revised pension of the Petitioner in terms of and on line of the order dated. 01.07.2021 at Annexure-F passed in W.P. 23577/2014/in terms of the Government Order No. FD (Spl) 2 PET 99 Bangalore dated. 15.02.1999 at Annexure-C. other Government Orders pertaining to revision of pensionary benefits issued by the Government from time to time including the Government Orders bearing Nos. ED 275 UPC 2004 Bangalore dated. 13-11-2006 at Annexure-D, ED 275 UPC 2004 Bangalore dated. 08-02-2007 at Annexure-D1, ED 275 UPC 2004 Bangalore dated. 08-03-2007 at Annexure-D2, No. FD 03 PEN 2007(1) Bangalore dated. 06-06-2007 at Annexure-E, FD 81 PEN 2012 Bangalore dated. 03-05-2012 at Annexure-E-1, FD 33 PEN 2018 Bangalore dated. 24-04-2018 at Annexure-E-2, No. ED 04 UPC 2022 Bangalore 30-03-2022 at Annexure-F-1 with all consequential benefits including arrears thereof with interest at 6% from the date it fell due till the date of payment in the interest of justice and equity.

(b) Grant such other reliefs as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

In W.P. 101673/2023

(a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other order or direction in the nature of writ directing the Respondents to fix and pay the revised pension of the petitioners 1 to 12, as well as the deceased selection grade lecturers namely late A.S.Hiremath, the deceased father of Petitioner No. 13, late S.Abdul Kareem, the deceased husband of Petitioner No. 14, late C.S. Hiremath, the deceased husband of Petitioner No. 15, late Satish Patawardhan, the deceased husband of Petitioner No. 16 and late Sawant Babu Patil, the deceased husband of the Petitioner No. 17, in terms of and on the line of the order dated 01.07.2021 at Annexure-V passed in W.P.23577/2014 in terms of the Government Order No. FD (Spl) 2 PET 99 Bangalore dated 15.2.1999 at Annexure-'S-2'; other Government orders pertaining to revision pensionary benefits issued by the Government from time to time including the Government Orders at bearing Nos. ED 275 UPC 2004 dated Bangalore dated 13.11.2006 at Annexure-T, ED 275 UPC 2004 Bangalore dated 08.02.2007 at Annexure-T1, ED 275 UPC 2004 Bangalore dated 08.03.2007 at Annexure-T2, No. FD 03 PEN 2007(1) Bangalore dated 06.06.2006 at Annexure-U-1, FD 33 PEN 2018 Bangalore dated 24.04.2018 at Annexure-U-2, No. ED 04 UPC 2020-22 Bangalore dated 30.03.2022 at Annexure-V-1 with all consequential benefits including arrears with interest at 6% from the date it fell due in the interest of justice and equity.

(b) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other order or direction in the nature of a writ directing the respondents to fix and pay the revised family pension payable to petitioners 14 to 17, who are representing the deceased Selection Grade Lecturers in terms of G.Os.-Government Order No. FD (Spl) 2 PET 99 Bangalore dated 15.2.1999 at Annexure-S-2 allied Government Orders issued from time to time including the Government orders at bearing Nos. .ED 275 UPC 2004 Bangalore dated 13.11.2006 at Annexure-T, ED 275 UPC 2004 Bangalore dated 08.02.2007 at Annexure-T1, ED 275 UPC 2004 Bangalore dated 08.03.2007 at Annexure-T2, No. FD 03 PEN 2007(1) Bangalore dated 06.06.2006 at Annexure-U, FD 81 PEN 2012 Bangalore dated 03.05.2012 at Annexure-U-1, FD 33 PEN 2018 Bangalore dated 24.04.2018 at Annexure-U-2, pertaining to family pension, with all consequential benefits including arrears with interest at 6% from the date it fell due in the interest of justice and equity.

(c) Grant such other reliefs as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

2. Learned counsel Sri. Ashok R. Kalyanshetty appearing for the petitioners would submit that the issue in the lis stands completely covered by what this Court had ordered in Writ Petition NO.23577/2014 disposed on 01.07.2021.

3. The learned High Court Government Pleader though would refute the submissions but would admit that the said order is not appealed against and has become final.

4. In the light of the finding already rendered by this Court in identical circumstances of the petitioners who are identically placed, these petitioners or their legal representatives are entitled to the very same relief that is granted at the hands of this Court.

5. This Court in Writ Petition No. 23577/2014 as held as follows:

2. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the petition as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:

"All the petitioners in this writ petition are employees who have retired between 01.04.1996 and 31.03.1998. The particulars of the dates of retirement of the petitioners are as follows:"

Rank of the petitioner	Name of the petitioner	Date of retirement
1.	V Srinivasan	31.01.1998
2.	S Premananda	31.10.1997
3.	P.S. Shivaswamy	31.12.1999
4.	D.C. Basavalingaiah	31.03.1997
5.	Dr. V.A.Subhadra	31.03.1998
6.	R. Shivanna	31.08.1996
7.	C.K.Pattanasetti	01.02.1998
8.	T.G. Raghavendra	30.04.1996
9.	Venkatachala C.V.	01.02.1998
10.	K. Siddalingaiah	30.06.1997
11.	Dr.K.R.Srikantaiah	30.09.1997
12.	Dr.R.V.Swamy	31.01.1998
13.	M.Shivakumara Swamy	28.02.1998
14.	Sheik Azmathulla	30.06.1996
15.	H.S.Basavaraj	31.12.1997
16.	S.H.Siddappa Devaru	31.01.1998
17.	R. Sarojamma	31.10.1997
18.	T Sharada	30.09.1996
19.	M Shantha Kumar	30.04.1996
20.	H.C.Veerabhadraiah	31.05.1996
21.	Vamadev P.M.	31.03.1997
22.	S.P.Srinivasan	30.06.1997
23.	Dr.D.C.Patil	26.02.1997
24.	C.M.Kotturashetti	30.09.1997
25.	Dr.V.S.Bhadrapur	30.03.1997
26.	A.R.Desai	31.03.1998
27.	R.S.Bhoosanurmath	30.01.1998
28.	Mrs. Malathi Pattanasetti	31.12.1996
29.	M.N.Edalli	30.06.1996
30.	S.J.Deaodhar	31.12.1996
31.	G.M.Lingaraj	31.10.1996
32.	S.C.Patil	01.01.1997
33.	S.C.Hiremath	31.07.1997
34.	A.S. Kittur	31.05.1996
35.	I.S.Menasinakai	31.05.1997
36.	S.B. Dambal	31.05.1996
37.	B.N.Siddangoudar	31.05.1996
38.	V.V.Hebbali	29.09.1996
39.	Anant Shankar Pendse	31.03.1998
40.	M.R. Ullegaddi	31.05.1996
41.	CG Hatti	31.03.1998
42.	M.B.Kanaganni	31.03.1998
43.	B.J.Patil	31.05.1997
44.	S.C. Totad	27.02.1998
45.	M.B. Bikkanavar	31.12.1997
46.	P.V. Joshi	30.09.1997
47.	B.K.Kambi	31.01.1998
48.	M.G.arasannavar	31.10.1997
49.	A.M.Radha	31.05.1996
50.	S.K. Kulakarni	30.09.1996
51.	S.K. Hudedmani	30.03.1996
52.	K.A. Bannetti	30.06.1997
53.	B.F. Hasrani	31.08.1996
54.	V.V. Alegavi	30.09.1997
55.	Smt. Shakunthala	26.06.2003
56.	S.B. Pattanasetti	30.09.1997
57.	R.V. Ghatti	30.04.1997
58.	M.S. Sankh	30.06.1997
59.	S.S. Kanamadi	30.04.1997
60.	K.B. Patil	31.03.1996
61.	S.K. Kenganal	30.07.1996
62.	D.R. Mirji	30.06.1996
63.	Basavannevva R Sajjanar	31.09.1997
64.	B.S. Sarangamath	30.06.1996
65.	Smt. Daxayini T Bhapri	30.01.1998
66.	V.K. Veenakar	31.10.1997
67.	G.M. Bhairodgi	31.03.1997
68.	I. R. Neeli	31.03.1997
69.	B.C. Kotturshetter	30.04.1997

3. The claim of the petitioners is that, despite plethora of representations given by them, discriminate treatment is meted out by the first to third respondents

4.-State by not granting the petitioners revision of pension as is available in terms of the Government Order dated 15.02.1999. The Government Order dated 15.02.1999, insofar as germane is extracted as follows:-

"GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.FD(SPL)2 PET 99, BANGALORE DATED 15.02.1999

1. Government have considered the recommendations of the Official Pay Committee in regard to revision of Pension/Family Pension of Government servants who have retired or died while in service prior to 01.04.1998 and are pleased to issue the following order:"

Government accepted the recommendation of the Pension Pay Committee for revision of pension for government servants who retired from service or died while in service, prior to 01.04.1998. In terms of afore-narrated dates, all the petitioners have ceased to be in employment on attaining the age of superannuation before 01.04.1998. Though the petitioners gave plethora of representations to the first to third respondents-State, even then, the State did not accede to their request for grant of revise pension in terms of the Government Order as is sought for in the prayer and all consequential benefits that would flow thereon.

5. The issue with regard to the payment of pension to the petitioners and to like, who retired between 01.01.1996 and 31.03.1998, need not detain this Court for long as the learned Additional Government Advocate would also accept the fact that the issue stands covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of U.P. Raghavendra Acharya and others vs. State of Karnataka, which considered an identical circumstance where the petitioners were also retired between 01.01.1996 and 31.03.1998. The Apex Court has held as follows:

"19. The fact that the appellants herein were treated to be at par with the holders of similar posts in Government Colleges is neither denied nor disputed. The appellants indisputably are governed by the UGC scales of pay. They are entitled to the pensionary benefits also. They had been given the benefits of the revision of scales of pay by 10th Pay Revision Committee w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The pensionary benefits payable to them on attaining the age of superannuation or death were also stated to be at par with the employees of the State Government. The State of Karnataka, as noticed hereinbefore, for all intent and purport, has treated the teachers of the Government Aided Colleges and the Regional Engineering Colleges on the one hand and the teachers of the colleges run by the State itself on the other hand at par. Even the financial rules were made applicable to them in terms of the notifications, applying the rule of incorporation by reference. Although Rule 296 of the Rules per se may not be applicable so far as the appellants are concerned, it now stands admitted that the provisions thereof have been applied to the case of the appellants also for the purpose of computation of pensionary benefits. Therefore there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the term "Emoluments" as contained in Rule 296 of the Rules would also apply to the case of the appellants. Rule 296 of the Rules reads as under:

"296. In respect of retirement or death while in service of Government Servants on or after first day of July, 1993, the term "Emoluments" for the purpose of this Chapter means, the Basic pay drawn by the Government servant in the scale of pay applicable to the post on the date of retirement or death and includes the following, but does not include pay and allowance drawn from a source other than the Consolidated Fund of the State,-

......................................... Note:- (a) Basic pay means the pay drawn in the time scale of pay applicable to the post immediately before retirement or death."

20. Note (a) appended to the Rule 296, states that basic pay would mean the pay drawn in the time scale of pay applicable to the post immediately before the retirement or death. Other rules being Rule 296B, 296C, 296D, etc. specifying different dates of retirement or death used similar terminology. Rule 297 provides that the term "average emoluments" means the average calculated upon the last three years of service.

21. It is one thing to say that the State can fix a cut off date unless and until the same is held to be arbitrary or discriminatory in nature, the same would be given effect for carrying out the purpose for which it was fixed.. In this case, the cut-off date for all intent and purport had been fixed as 1.1.1996. It is, thus, not a case where cut-off date was fixed as 1.4.1998 as the State merely intended to confer only same benefits. It is, thus, also not a case like Transmission Corporation, A.P. Ltd. vs. P. Ramachandra Rao & Anr. [2006 (4) SCALE 362 [LQ/SC/2006/340] }, where a section of the employees were excluded from being given the benefit of revised pension as they had retired prior to the cut-off date.

22. The State while implementing the new scheme for payment of grant of pensionary benefits to its employees, may deny the same to a class of retired employees who were governed by a different set of rules. The extension of the benefits can also be denied to a class of employees if the same is permissible in law. The case of the appellants, however, stands absolutely on a different footing. They had been enjoying the benefit of the revised scales of pay. Recommendations have been made by the Central Government as also the University Grant Commission to the State of Karnataka to extend the benefits of the Pay Revision Committee in their favour. The pay in their case had been revised in 1986 whereas the pay of the employees of the State of Karnataka was revised in 1993. The benefits of the recommendations of the Pay Revision Committee w.e.f. 1.1.1996, thus could not have been denied to the appellants.

23. The stand of the State of Karnataka that the pensionary benefits had been conferred on the appellants w.e.f. 1.4.1998 on the premise that the benefit of the revision of scales of pay to its own employees had been conferred from 1.1.1998, in our opinion, is wholly misconceived. Firstly, because the employees of the State of Karnataka and the appellants, in the matter of grant of benefit of revised scales of pay, do not stand on the same footing as revised scales of pay had been made applicable to their cases from a different date. Secondly, the appellants had been given the benefit of the revised scales of pay w.e.f. 1.1.1996. It is now well settled that a notification can be issued by the State accepting the recommendations of the Pay Revision Committee with retrospective effect as it was beneficent to the employees. Once such a retrospective effect is given to the recommendations of the Pay Revision Committee, the concerned employees despite their reaching the age of superannuation in between the said dates and/or the date of issuance of the notification would be deemed to be getting the said scales of pay as on 1.1.1996. By reason of such notification as the appellants had been derived of a vested right, they could not have been deprived therefrom and that too by reason of executive instructions.

24. The contention of the State that the matter relating to the grant of pensionary benefits vis-a-vis the revision in the scales of pay stands on different footing, thus, must be rejected.

25. Pension, as is well known, is not a bounty. It is treated to be a deferred salary. It is akin to right of property. It is co-related and has a nexus with the salary payable to the employees as on the date of retirement.

26. These appeals involve the question of revision of pay and consequent revision in pension and not the grant of pension for the first time. Only the modality of computing the quantum of pension was required to be determined in terms of the notification issued by the State of Karnataka. For the said purpose, Rule 296 of the Rules was made applicable. Once this rule became applicable, indisputably the computation of pensionary benefits was required to be carried out in terms thereof. The Pension Rules envisage that pension should be calculated only on the basis of the emoluments last drawn. No order, therefore, could be issued which would be contrary to or inconsistent therewith. Such emoluments were to be reckoned only in terms of the statutory rules. If the State had taken a conscious decision to extend the benefit of the UGC pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1996, to the appellants allowing them to draw their pay and allowances in terms thereof, we fail to see any reason as to why the pensionary benefits would not be extended to them from the said date.

27. In fact the status of the appellants that they were at par with teachers of the Government colleges was not disputed. A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in V.P. Babar & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (W.P. Nos. 32163-32208/1998) has clearly held so. It has not been disputed that the said judgment has become final as the State of Karnataka did not prefer any appeal there against.

28. The impugned orders furthermore is opposed to the basic principles of law inasmuch as by reason of executive instructions an employee cannot be deprived of a vested or accrued right. Such a right to draw pension to the extent of 50% of the emoluments, computed in terms of the rules, w.e.f. 1.1.1996, vested to the appellants in terms of Government notification read with Rule 296 of the Rules.

34. It is also trite that persons similarly situated cannot be discriminate against. ( See K.T. Veerappa v. State of Karnataka9)."

(emphasis supplied)

Notwithstanding the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of U.P. Raghavendracharya (supra), the petitioners were not paid revised pension as is available in the Government Order. It is also germane to notice that the Apex Court in the subsequent judgment in the case of All Manipur Pensioners Association vs. State of Manipur 2, has clearly held that the pensioners who retired after 01.01.1996 form a homogeneous class, any artificial classification would amount to creation of a class within a class and direct payment of pension/revised pension to the pensioners before the Apex Court. Both the judgments of the Apex Court as observed hereinabove would cover the facts obtaining in the present case at hand on all fours. The petitioners have also sought payment of interest on the revised pension on account of the delay on the part of the State. The petitioners have approached this Court after delay of seven years. Therefore, the petitioners shall not be entitled to any interest on the pension which became due, except for three years prior to approaching this Court. This is in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA Vs. TARSEM SINGH reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648, [LQ/SC/2008/1658] has held as follows:

3. The respondent however was not satisfied. According to him the disability pension ought to be paid from the date it fell due on 13-11-1983. He therefore filed a letters patent appeal. The said appeal was allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court by judgment dated 6-12-2006. The Division Bench held that the respondent was entitled to disability pension from the date it fell due, and it should not be restricted to a period of three years and two months prior to the filing of the writ petition. By a subsequent modification order dated 23-2-2007, the Division Bench also granted interest on the arrears at the rate of 6% per annum. The said judgment and order of the Division Bench is challenged in this appeal. The only question that therefore arises for our consideration is whether the High Court was justified in directing payment of arrears for a period of 16 years instead of restricting it to three years.

4. The principles underlying continuing wrongs and recurring/successive wrongs have been applied to service law disputes. A “continuing wrong” refers to a single wrongful act which causes a continuing injury. “Recurring/successive wrongs” are those which occur periodically, each wrong giving rise to a distinct and separate cause of action. This Court in Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare v. Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan [AIR 1959 SC 798 [LQ/SC/1959/35] ] explained the concept of continuing wrong (in the context of Section 23 of the Limitation Act, 1908 corresponding to Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963): (AIR p. 807, para 31)

"31. ... It is the very essence of a continuing wrong that it is an act which creates a continuing source of injury and renders the doer of the act responsible and liable for the continuance of the said injury. If the wrongful act causes an injury which is complete, there is no continuing wrong even though the damage resulting from the act may continue. If, however, a wrongful act is of such a character that the injury caused by it itself continues, then the act constitutes a continuing wrong. In this connection, it is necessary to draw a distinction between the injury caused by the wrongful act and what may be described as the effect of the said injury."

5. In M.R. Gupta v. Union of India [(1995) 5 SCC 628 [LQ/SC/1995/818] : 1995 SCC (L&S) 1273 : (1995) 31 ATC 186] the appellant approached the High Court in 1989 with a grievance in regard to his initial pay fixation with effect from 1-8-1978. The claim was rejected as it was raised after 11 years. This Court applied the principles of continuing wrong and recurring wrongs and reversed the decision. This Court held: (SCC pp. 629- 30, para 5)

"5. ... The appellant's grievance that his pay fixation was not in accordance with the rules, was the assertion of a continuing wrong against him which gave rise to a recurring cause of action each time he was paid a salary which was not computed in accordance with the rules. So long as the appellant is in service, a fresh cause of action arises every month when he is paid his monthly salary on the basis of a wrong computation made contrary to rules. It is no doubt true that if the appellant's claim is found correct on merits, he would be entitled to be paid according to the properly fixed pay scale in the future and the question of limitation would arise for recovery of the arrears for the past period. In other words, the appellant's claim, if any, for recovery of arrears calculated on the basis of difference in the pay which has become time-barred would not be recoverable, but he would be entitled to proper fixation of his pay in accordance with rules and to cessation of a continuing wrong if on merits his claim is justified. Similarly, any other consequential relief claimed by him, such as, promotion, etc., would also be subject to the defence of laches, etc. to disentitle him to those reliefs. The pay fixation can be made only on the basis of the situation existing on 1-8-1978 without taking into account any other consequential relief which may be barred by his laches and the bar of limitation. It is to this limited extent of proper pay fixation, the application cannot be treated as time-barred...."

7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.

8. In this case, the delay of sixteen years would affect the consequential claim for arrears. The High Court was not justified in directing payment of arrears relating to sixteen years, and that too with interest. It ought to have restricted the relief relating to arrears to only three years before the date of writ petition, or from the date of demand to date of writ petition, whichever was lesser. It ought not to have granted interest on arrears in such circumstances.

(emphasis supplied)

In terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the afore-extracted judgment, a pensioner cannot be shown a closed door of this Court on the ground that he has bought his cause belatedly but cannot be granted arrears for the entire period from the date of retirement to the date of filing the writ petition. Therefore, in terms of the afore-extracted judgment of the Apex Court, arrears to the petitioner is restricted only to the period of three years prior to filing the writ petition.

6. In the light of the prayers that are sought are identical and the issue raised are also identical, I deem it appropriate to allow the writ petitions granting the very same relief on the very same reasons so rendered in the aforesaid writ petition.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the order supra has been implemented by the State by paying the arrears of UGC pay scale in terms of its order dated 30.03.2022. Therefore, the said fact becomes an added circumstance to grant the relief that the petitioners are entitled to in these cases.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, the following order.

ORDER

i. The writ petitions stand allowed.

ii. Respondents-State is directed to fix and pay revised pay to the petitioners in terms of and online of the Government Order No. FD (Spl) 2 PET 99 dated 15.02.1999 vide Annexure 'C' in Writ Petition No. 103519/2023 and Government Order No. FD (Spl) 2 PET 99 dated 15.02.1999 vide Annexure 'S-2' in Writ Petition No. 101673/2023 and other Government Orders issued from time to time in furtherance of the Government Order dated 15.02.1999 which is made applicable to similar situated employees and grant all consequential benefits that would flow from he grant of revised pension along with interest only for a period of three years prior to filing of the present petitions and not for and from any date earlier.

iii. The order shall be complied within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which, the petitioners would be entitled to interest at 6% per annum from the date on which it fell due till its payment.