High Court dismissed appeals filed by an employee and the management of an educational institution against the Single Judge order confirming the employee's reinstatement with back wages, finding no merit in the challenges.
The appeals were dismissed; the Single Judge's order directing reinstatement with back wages was upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
W.A.No.1047/2019 (S – RES) C/W W.A.No.954/2019 (S – RES)
In W.A.NO.1047/2019
BETWEEN:
Sri. H.S.Mallikarjun, S/o Sri. Siddamallappa, Aged 51 years, Presently Residing At 1st Main, 7th B Cross, Hanumanthapura, Tumkur – 572 107. … Appellant
(By Sri. K.N.Nitish, Advocate)
AND:
2
(By Sri. Naveed Ahmed, Advocate for R-1 and R-2, Sri. A.C.Balaraj, AGA for R-3 and R-4)
This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High court Act praying to allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 26/02/2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.5872/2011 (S-RES) to the extent that the backwages to the appellant in the scale of grant-in-aid is not granted.
In W.A.NO.954/2019
BETWEEN:
Tumkur – 572 101.
(By Sri. Naveed Ahmed, Advocate)
3
AND:
Son of Siddamallappa Age about 52 years, Residing at Mouna Mayura, 3rd Main, Gandhinagar, Tumkur – 572 101.
(By Sri.K.N.Nitish, Advocate for R-1, Sri. A.C.Balaraj, AGA for R-2 and R-3)
This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act Praying to Set Aside the Order of the learned Single Judge dated:26/02/2019 in WP.No.5872/2011 [S-RES] and allow the Writ Petition as prayed for.
These appeals coming on for Preliminary hearing this day, NAGARATHNA, J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The legality and correctness of the order dated 26.02.2019 passed in WP.No.5872/2011 by learned Single Judge has been assailed in these appeals.
4
5
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Tribunal’ for the sake of brevity) in EAT.No.13/2004.
05.10.2020 allowed the appeal in part and set aside the removal of the appellant/lecturer from his service and directed his reinstatement to the post of Lecturer in Civil Engineering Department to which he was appointed with effect from 26.04.2004 and to pay him all consequential benefits except the back wages prior to 26.04.2004. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Management has filed W.P.No.5872/2011 before this Court. At this stage itself it may be mentioned that the appellant/lecturer did not assail the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal before this Court.
6
institution noted that the appellant/lecturer was serving at Acharya Polytechnic Bangalore from 01.09.2004 to 16.08.2009 and in Sridevi Polytechnic College, Tumkuru, from 01.01.2012 to 16.06.2018. Consequently, the learned Single Judge modified the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal while confirming the reinstatement of the appellant/lecturer and directed the institution to pay back wages for the period from 01.06.2004 to 31.08.2004, from 17.08.2009 to 31.12.2012 and from 17.06.2018 till the date of reinstatement. It was clarified that the salary would be paid for the aforesaid period should be in accordance with his last drawn salary. The learned Single Judge has also noted that the appellant/lecturer was never given salary as per grantin-aid. In the circumstances, a direction was issued that after reinstatement of the appellant/lecturer, the Management may consider forwarding the name of the appellant/lecturer to the competent Authority for inclusion in the grant-in-aid. Being aggrieved by the
7
directions of the learned Single Judge, the appellant/lecturer as well as the Management filed their respective appeals.
respective parties and perused the material on record.
8
learned Single Judge has directed Management to pay the back wages for the periods during which he was not in gainful employment and till his reinstatement.
9
post that the appellant/lecturer is entitled to grant-in-aid salary, therefore, the appellant/lecturer may be paid at what he would have received, if he has been admitted to grant-in-aid but for the illegal termination.
this regard and we find that at the out set, having regard to the Appellate Tribunal declining to pay the back wages prior to 26.04.2004, the appellant/lecturer has not challenged the same as far as the period subsequent to 26.04.2004 is concerned. Learned Single Judge has taken note of the fact that the appellant/lecturer who was working in two institutions and has accordingly excluded the period during which he was in gainful employment and has awarded back wages only for the remaining period during which he was not in employment. We find that, the said approach of learned Single Judge is just and proper as it is based on the affidavit filed by the appellant/lecturer. It is needless to observe that no
10
employee can draw salary from two places while being engaged in service in one of the institutions only.
11
this judgment and to pay the back wages in terms of the directions of learned Single Judge as expeditiously as possible in terms of the last drawn salary of the appellant/lecturer.
dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
KTY
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Single Judge's order reinstating an employee and directing back wages.
Whether the employee and the educational institution have any cause to appeal against the Single Judge's order granting reinstatement with back wages.
H.S.Mallikarjun
Management of HMS Education Society
Director of Technical Education
B.V.Nagarathna
N.S.Sanjay Gowda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
