Partly allowed

Smt.Medha D/O Janardhan Jaiwant v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Oct 2019WP/109902/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Preliminary hearing where the High Court admitted the writ petition. The court held that the Administrative Tribunal's order was vitiated by non-application of mind due to lack of reasons for denying back wages and quashed it, remanding the matter to the Tribunal for a speaking order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 28.11.2018 is quashed and set aside, and the matter is remitted to the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal to decide the applications afresh within two months.

Smt.Medha D/O Janardhan Jaiwant Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^{T H} DAY OF OCTOBER 2019

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.G.M. PATIL

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.109902/2019 (S- KAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT.MEDHA D/O. JANARDHAN JAIWANT AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: LECTURER, R/O. GOVERNMENT WOMEN POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, BONDEL, MANGALORE-575015

¶11

... PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI SHRIHARSH A NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, M.S.BUILDINGS, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001

¶15

THE DIRECTOR APPOINTING & DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY TECHNICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU

¶16

¶17

THE PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT WOMEN POLYTECHNIC

¶18

COLLEGE, BONDEL, MANGALORE-575015

¶19

... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI G.K.HIREGOUDAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE.)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO:

¶22

I) ISSUE A WRIT OR DIRECTION OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.5524/2014 DATED 28.11.2018 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, ON I.A.NO.III AND IV AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE I.A.NO.III AND IV FILED BEFORE THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU;

¶23

II) ISSUE A WRIT OR DIRECTION OR ORDER IN THE NATUE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT FULL BACK WAGES TO THE PETITONER FROM THE DATE OF TERMINATION I.E., 26.06.2014 TILL HER REINSTATEMENT, ETC.,.

¶24

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE, J, PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Sri Shriharsh A. Neelopant, learned counsel for petitioner. Sri G.K.Hiregoudar, learned

¶27

Additional Government Advocate for respondents.

¶28

¶29

The writ petition is admitted for

¶30

hearing. With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.

¶31

In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter-alia seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing of the impugned order dated 28.11.2018, passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru.

¶32

Facts giving rise for filing of this petition briefly stated are that, the petitioner had filed Original Application before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, against the order of dismissal. The aforesaid application was disposed of by the tribunal by order dated 19.7.2017 by which the order of dismissal of the petitioner was quashed and the respondent No.2

¶33

therein was directed to reinstate the petitioner within a period two months. It was further held

¶34

¶35

that the petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits inclusive of seniority, notional fixation of pay and monetary benefits, if any. However the back wages were denied to the petitioner. Thereupon the petitioner filed applications seeking modification of the order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal. The aforesaid applications have been rejected by the tribunal by impugned order dated 28.11.2018, on the ground that the tribunal has not said anything about payment of back wages. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled for back wages. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶36

Learned counsel for petitioner submits

¶37

that in case the petitioner is deprived of her right to claim back wages, the tribunal has to assign valid and cogent reasons and has to take into account the relevant factors. It is further

¶38

¶39

submitted that the impugned order has been passed in a cryptic and cavalier manner, which suffers from the vice of non application of mind. On the other hand, leaned Additional Government Advocate has supported the order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal.

¶40

We have considered the submissions made on both sides. It is well settled in law that even a quasi-judicial authority is required to assign reasons for passing the order. In view of the decision laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘Victoria Memorial’ reasons were held to be the heartbeat of every conclusion, apart from being an essential feature of the principles of natural justice, that ensure transparency and fairness, in the decision making process. [See: ‘Maya Devi vs. Raj Kumari Batra and others’, (2010) 9 SCC 486, ‘Sant Lal Gupta and others vs. Modern Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited and

¶41

¶42

others’, (2010) 13 SCC 336, ‘Union of India and another vs. Talwinder Singh’, (2012) 5 SCC 480, and ‘Union of India vs. Ravinder Kumar’, (2015) 12 SCC 291].

¶43

In view of the aforesaid enunciation of

¶44

law, if the impugned order dated 28.11.2018 is examined, it is evident that the tribunal has not assigned any reasons for rejecting the claim of the petitioner for back wages. It is well settled in law that grant of back wages is not an automatic consequence of an order of reinstatement.

¶45

However, the authority has to take into account various factors and has to assign valid and cogent reasons for depriving the claim of a party for back wages.

¶46

In the instant case, the impugned order suffers from the vice of non application of mind and no reasons are assigned for rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner seeking

¶47

¶48

modification of the order passed by the tribunal. Therefore, the impugned order dated 28.11.2018 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, to decide the interlocutory applications filed by the petitioner afresh, by a speaking order, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶49

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

Mrk/-

Smt.Medha D/O Janardhan Jaiwant v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Medha D/O Janardhan Jaiwant v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri.Birappa S/O Vithoba Bhanuse Vs the State of Karnataka

Girish S/O Basavanappa Hurukadalli Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Anand Rao S/O Shamsundar Rao Desai Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.S.M.Satisha Babu S/O Shivanandaswamyi Vs the State of Karnataka

Basappa S/O Husanappa Talawar Vs State of Karnataka

Dyamanagouda S/O Hanumagouda Police Patil Vs the Land Acquisition Officer and