Disposed

The President v. B T Shanthakumar

Karnataka HC14 Sept 2020WA/1468/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of a writ appeal against an order remanding an employment dispute for fresh enquiry. The Court held that monetary benefits awarded by the Education Appellate Tribunal depend on the fresh enquiry result. It allowed the respondent to claim subsistence allowance for the period between retirement and reinstatement as suspension of service.

What did the court decide?

Arrears of salary and benefits subject to fresh enquiry result; respondent at liberty to claim subsistence allowance for the period between retirement and reinstatement.

The President Vs B T Shanthakumar — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

¶7

WRIT APPEAL No.1468 OF 2018 (S-R)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE PRESIDENT, SREE SIDDAGANGA EDUCATION SOCIETY (REGD.) SREE SIDDAGANGA MUTT, TUMKUR-571 404. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, SRI SIDDALINGASWAMIGALU, MATADHYKSHARU, SREE SIDDAGANGA MUTT, TUMKUR-572 101.

¶10

... APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR S., ADVOCATE FOR M/S. M.SHIVAPPA ASSOCIATES (THROUGH VC))

¶12

AND:

¶13

B.T.SHANTHAKUMAR, EX. MECHANIC, DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, SIT, TUMKUR WORKING IN SSITI, K.B.MUTT, C/O PRAKASH BABU K.R., ‘SREE RANGA NILAYA’, DEVARAYAPATNA EXTENSION, KUNDUR ROAD, TUMKUR-572 101 ..RESPONDENT

¶14

(SRI. SUBRAMANYA BHAT M., ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR RESPONDENT (THROUGH VC))

¶15

¶16

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P NO.987/2017 [S-R] DATED 20.04.2018 AND ALSO THAT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE EDUCATION APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKUR IN MA[EAT] NO.3/2013 DATED 07.11.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE ‘J’ IN W.P. NO.987/2017 ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST THROUGHOUT WHICH IS NECESSARY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶17

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J ., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This writ appeal is preferred by the management of an Educational Institution assailing the order dated 20.04.2018 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.987/2017.

¶20

Briefly stated, the facts are that on 25.02.2013, the respondent was ordered to be compulsorily retired from service in the appellant – Institution. He challenged the said order before the Education Appellate Tribunal (‘EAT’, for short) in M.A.(EAT) No.3 of 2013. The respondent, inter alia, contended that the very initiation of proceedings against him under the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification,

¶21

¶22

Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 was without jurisdiction and that the Karnataka Education Act and the Rules made thereunder are applicable to him. The EAT, on referring to the provisions of the Rules made under the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) as well as the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, held that the action initiated against the respondent was vitiated and ordered for reinstatement of the respondent, by setting aside the order dated 25.02.2013 with full arrears of salary and all consequential benefits admissible to him under the Rules. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the EAT dated 07.11.2016 (Annexure ‘J’ to the writ petition), the Institution preferred the writ petition before this Court.

¶23

Learned Single Judge by the impugned order

¶24

opined that the EAT was not right in absolutely setting aside the order dated 25.02.2013 and leaving the matter to rest at that. In the circumstances, the order dated

¶25

¶26

07.11.2016 passed in M.A (EAT) No.3/2013 was

¶27

modified. The matter was remanded to the Disciplinary Authority to take a decision under the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder if they deemed necessary so as to proceed against the respondent herein. Writ petition was accordingly disposed. Contending that the learned Single Judge had not interfered with the rest of the order passed by EAT with regard to extension of arrears of salary and all consequential benefits to the respondent, the Institution has preferred this appeal.

¶28

We have heard learned counsel for the

¶29

appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶30

Appellant’s counsel contended that in terms of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.04.2018, fresh enquiry has been initiated under the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder and that the enquiry is in progress. However, this appeal was filed as learned Single Judge did not completely set aside the

¶31

¶32

judgment of the EAT in as much as while directing the Institution to conduct a fresh enquiry under the relevant Act and Rules, having reinstated the respondent, did not interfere with the monetary and consequential benefits extended to the respondent by the EAT. In the circumstances, this appeal has been filed and there is an interim stay. He also contended that the enquiry is in progress and three witnesses have already been examined.

¶33

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

¶34

contended that since the respondent has been reinstated pursuant to the judgment of the EAT and the order of the learned Single Judge has been complied with by the appellant – Institution to that extent there is no merit in this appeal and the respondent is entitled for all the arrears of salary and consequential benefits on his reinstatement. He contended that the period from the date of the order compulsorily retiring the respondent and his reinstatement cannot be construed to be as one being out of service or cessation of service. In view of

¶35

¶36

his reinstatement which has been made by the appellant – Institution, there is continuity of service and therefore, the respondent is entitled to monetary benefits and consequential benefits. In the circumstances, he submitted that there is no merit in this appeal.

¶37

Having heard learned counsel for the

¶38

respective parties, we find at the outset that the appellant – Institution has complied with the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in as much as the appellant has initiated a fresh enquiry against the respondent under the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereto. However, the question about the status of the respondent from the date of his compulsory retirement till the date of his reinstatement would have to be determined. There cannot be a hiatus or cessation in service in as much as the appellant – Institution has reinstated the respondent pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge. But the fact remains that reinstatement of the respondent into service is also

¶39

¶40

subject to the result of the fresh enquiry that has been initiated by the appellant – Institution.

¶41

In the circumstances, we find at this stage,

¶42

arrears of salary and other benefits that the respondent is entitled to in terms of the judgment of the EAT cannot be determined, as it would depend upon the result of the fresh enquiry initiated against the respondent. However, the fact remains that the respondent has been reinstated and order of compulsory retirement dated 25.02.2013 has been set aside by the EAT and confirmed by this Court. Since the period of service from the date of compulsory retirement (25.02.2013) till the date of his reinstatement is pursuant to the orders of this Court which has at the same time permitted the appellant – Institution to initiate a fresh enquiry against the respondent, the status of the respondent – employee during that period would ultimately be subject to the result of the enquiry proceedings.

¶43

¶44

In that regard, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that since there is reinstatement of the respondent into service, there is continuity in service and the said period between the date of compulsory retirement (25.02.2013) and the date of reinstatement must be construed to be as being in suspension from service and if that is so, the respondent is entitled to subsistence allowance. Since the appeal is filed by the Institution and not by the respondent and there is no claim for subsistence allowance made by the respondent, at this stage, we do not wish to pronounce on the right and entitlement of the respondent to seek subsistence allowance.

¶45

In the circumstances, we dispose of this Appeal by holding that arrears of salary and consequential benefits granted by the EAT and not interfered with by the learned Single Judge would be subject to the result of the fresh enquiry initiated by the appellant – Institution. As far as the period from the

¶46

¶47

date of compulsory retirement (25.02.2013) till the date of reinstatement is concerned, the respondent is at liberty to make a claim for subsistence allowance on the premise that the said period must be construed to be one under suspension as the respondent has been reinstated into service by complying with the order of the EAT as well as by the learned Single Judge. We observe that if any such application is made by the respondent seeking subsistence allowance for the said period, the same shall be considered expeditiously and in accordance with law.

¶48

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the

¶49

Writ Appeal is disposed.

¶50

In view of disposal of the appeal, pending applications stand disposed.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

sma

The President v. B T Shanthakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The President v. B T Shanthakumar

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. K. P. Puttabasamma Vs Nil

Abb India Limited Vs Sri Lingaraju a R

Smt Guniyakumari Vs Sri Suresh J

Sri.Anjinappa Vs Sri.T.G.Chandrashekar

Sri.Kumaravelu Vs Sri.T.G.Chandrashekar

The Deputy Commissioner Vs M R Sudesh