The deletion of a regulatory provision does not negate pending claims established prior, as rights crystallized under the regulation must be honored.

ORDER :

M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction in the nature of writ to quash impugned order bearing No.HESCOM/ GM(A)/AO(IM)/AAO(IM)/CR-133/2021- 22/6903, dated.16.08.2021 (Annexure-P) and also order bearing No.HUVESAKAMNI/AM.NI./CR-150/2021- 22/10754, dated 27.10.2021 (Annexure-Q), passed by the 2^nd respondent and pass appropriate orders by allowing this writ petition in the interest of justice.

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for extending the benefit of re-fixation of pay by extending the benefit of pay protection and also entitled for counting of past service for pension and other benefits as per Rule 182 of the KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD EMPLOYEES SERVICE REGULATIONS .

iii. Grant such other or further relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances, including costs.

2. Heard the learned Counsel Sri.Arvind Kulkarani appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel Sri.B.S. Kamate, appearing for the respondents.

3. Facts adumbrated are as follows:

3.1 The petitioner pursuant to a selection process instituted by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the HAL’ for short) was appointed as an Accounts Trainee on 22.03.2007. After about 7 years of service, the petitioner comes to know about an employment notification issued by the respondent- Hubli Electricity Supply Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Company’ for short).

3.2 The petitioner being desirous of securing an employment in the company applies pursuant to the employment notification dated 23.09.2014 through proper channel i.e. through the HAL. This factor is not in dispute. The petitioner then participates in the selection process before the Company and selected on 21.02.2015, but the nuances of joining the duties was yet to get complete. Therefore the petitioner submits a resignation before the HAL and the HAL accepts the resignation on 23.02.2015 and relieves the petitioner. After the relief of the petitioner, the petitioner joins the Corporation as Accounts Officer. Up to this point there is no dispute.

3.3 The petitioner immediately after joining registers a claim. That the appointment order does not render any pay protection and the petitioner having applied through the proper channel was entitled to pay protection and therefore seeks pay protection and all consequential benefits that would flow from such order. The representation is not answered. Plethora of representations are submitted on one not being answered. On 16.08.2021 for the first time a communication is sent from the hands of the respondent to the petitioner seeking production of certain documents. The petitioner is said to have complied with the said direction of production of documents. What comes about later is the impugned order dated 27.10.2021 rejecting the claim of the petitioner quoting a resolution and an order of the Company that the provision that stood available at the time of appointment of the petitioner has since been deleted therefore the case of the petitioner cannot be considered. It is this that has driven the petitioner to this Court in subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri.Arvind Kulkarani would take this Court through the documents appended to the petition to demonstrate that his right crystallized the date on which the appointment was made on in the year 2015 and the representations submitted thereon. The deletion of 182(A) was prospective even according to the order that is passed by the Company. Therefore, th