Allowed

Sree Udaya Bharathi Education Society v. the Director

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2012WP/23371/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an Execution Court order directing payment of salary arrears. The Court found the order defective for lacking reasoning on the salary basis or government approval, remitting the matter for fresh disposal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 18.11.2010 in Execution No.242/2005 was set aside and remitted to the Educational Appellate Tribunal for disposal on record.

Sree Udaya Bharathi Education Society Vs the… — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH B ADI

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.23371/2011 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SREE UDAYA BHARATHI EDUCATION SOCIETY, NOW SREE UDAYA BHARATHI EDU AND CHARITABLE TRUST (REGD) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE SRI SHIVAIAH, S/O LATE SIDDANANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, BYCHENHALLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT REGD.OFFICE NO.21,NORTH ROAD, COOK TOWN, BANGALORE – 560 084. ...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. FAYAS SAB, ADV. FOR M/S ADINATHA NARDE & REVATHY ASSTS, ADVS.)

¶10

AND :

¶11

1 THE DIRECTOR, PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION BOARD, 18TH CROSS ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE 560 003.

¶12

2 DEVARAJAIAH H C , S/O CHIKKEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶13

¶14

WOKRING AS SECOND DIVISONI ASSISANT, UDAYA BHARATHI EDUCATOIN SOCIETY JUNIOR COLLEGE, TIPTUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT. MANJULA KAMADOLLI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI K GOVINDARAJA ADV. FOR R2 – ABSENT, SRI M.S PARTHASARTHI, ADV. AND SRI M.P. SRIKANTH, ADV. FOR R2 - ABSENT)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYIN TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT.18.11.10 MADE IN EXECUTION PET.NO.242/05, WHEREIN DIRECTED THE PETITIONER INSTITUTION TO PAY ARREARS OF SALARY FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.10.03 TO 31.5.05, AMOUNTING TO RS.1,44,491/- WITHIN THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER & FURTHER ORDERED THAT, IF THE PETITIONER HEREIN IS FAILED TO PAY OR DEPOSIT THE SAID AMOUNT WITHIN THREE MONTHS, THEREAFTER THE PETITIONER IS LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST ON THE SAID AMOUNT AT THE RATE OF 6 PERCENT PER ANNUM TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION, WHICH IS MARKED AS ANN-A AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS & PASSED WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND ETC.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Petitioner – Management has called in question the order

¶21

dated 18^th November 2010 in Execution No.242/2005 on the file of Principal District Judge and E.A.T., Tumkur.

¶22

¶23

Respondent No.2 had filed this Execution Petition, seeking arrears of salary from 01.10.2003 to 31.05.2005 on the ground that, he was dismissed from service by the petitioner – Management, as against which he has filed appeal in M.A. (E.A.T.) No.15/1987. The Educational Appellate Tribunal by order dated 31^st December 1997 allowed the said M.A. and set aside the order of dismissal, consequently directed the Management to reinstate him with consequential benefits.

¶24

It is not in dispute that, the Management had filed a C.R.P.No.1199/1998 and the said C.R.P. also came to be dismissed on 26.03.2003.

¶25

In view of the dismissal of the order and the Management having reinstated the respondent No.2 on 01.10.2003, respondent No.2 claimed that, he is entitled for arrears of salary from 01.10.2003 till 31.05.2005 till which date he was not paid the salary.

¶26

¶27

Before the Execution Court, the respondent No.2 got himself examined as PW-1 and produced Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. It appears that, Ex.P3 is the memo of calculation. Management examined the Principal, but he did not subject himself for crossexamination, his evidence is treated as no evidence and the impugned order has been passed.

¶28

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the respondent No.2 is entitled for salary from on 01.10.2003 to 31.05.2005, but he is not entitled for salary as per the Grant-in-Aid, as the post of the respondent No.2 has not been approved by the Government, he is entitled for salary as paid by the Management. However, the Execution Court without referring to these things has directed the Management to pay of Rs.1,44,491/-.

¶29

From the impugned order it is not clear on what basis the calculation has been arrived. If the respondent No.2 is claiming his salary on the basis of the Grant-in-Aid, then the post must have

¶30

¶31

been approved and admitted to the Grant-in-Aid. If it is not admitted or approved, then the respondent No.2 is entitled for salary as agreed between the Management and the respondent No.2. However, nowhere in the impugned order there is any discussion as to what was the salary received by the respondent No.2 or when his post is admitted to the salary grant. Except mentioning that the respondent No.2 is entitled for arrears of salary to the tune of Rs.1,44,491/-, there is no discussion. Even assuming that the Principal was not subjected to cross-examination, but on the basis of the evidence of the respondent No.2 also, there is no discussion. Hence, in my opinion, the matter requires reconsideration.

¶32

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.11.2010 in Ex.No.242/2005 on the file of the Principal District Judge and E.A.T., Tumkur, is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the Educational Appellate Tribunal to dispose of the matter afresh by considering the entire evidence on

¶33

¶34

record, as early as possible not later than two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

KNM/DP

Sree Udaya Bharathi Education Society v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sree Udaya Bharathi Education Society v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Vishalamma W/O Sri K N Bhaskar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Leelamani Vs State of Karnataka

Prakash Acharya Vs Udupi Power Corporation Ltd.

Prof S Sundarajan Vs Indian Institute of Management

Smt Chithra Vs the Child Development Project Officer

H K Sharadh Prasad, Vs State Bank of Mysore