Disposed

Rukhaiya D/O Bapusaheb Hadalge v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC27 Feb 2020WP/121563/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a relieving letter issued during her medical leave, citing lack of notice under her contract. The single-judge bench treated the notice as a prima facie show-cause notice, dismissed the petition, and directed petitioner to file a reply within 20 days before further proceedings. The writ petition was disposed of on interim terms.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of; the relieve letter is treated as show-cause notice; petitioner to file reply within 20 days.

Rukhaiya D/O Bapusaheb Hadalge Vs the Managing… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

Dated this the 27^TH day of February 2020

¶3

Before

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

¶5

Writ Petition No.121563 OF 2020 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

RUKHAIYA D/O BAPUSAHEB HADALGE AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BELAGAVI SMART CITY LTD., R/O: NO.788, PRAGATI SCHEME-40, BUDA LAYOUT, KUVEMPU NAGAR, BELAGAVI, NOW R/AT: "PLOT NO.81, ANNAPURNAWADI CROSS, BAUXITE ROAD, AZAM NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590010. ...PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. A.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND

¶9

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BELAGAVI SMART CITY LTD., OFFICE OF THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BELAGAVI, CTS NO.19, GURUWAR PETH, TILAKAWADI, BELAGAVI-590006. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR

¶11

¶12

DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED RELIEVING LETTER BEARING NO.BESMACILI/ADMINISTRATION/KA.AA/154/ RELIEVE/2019-20 DATED 13-01-2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-N; WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO ADHERE TO THE PROVISIONS OF HR POLICY AND ANNEXURE-2 AT THE TIME OF CONSIDERATION OF THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER PERTAINING TO SANCTION OF SALARY, YEARLY ENHANCEMENT SALARY, LEAVE AND OTHER SEVICE BENEFITS AS PROVIDED UNDER THE HR POLICY-2017 WHICH IS PRODUCED AS PER ANEXURE-A.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Sri. Jagadish Patil, learned counsel takes notice for

¶16

the respondent.

¶17

Even though the petition is listed for

¶18

preliminary hearing, with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶19

The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned relieving letter bearing No.BeSmaCiLi/Administration/KA.Aa/154/relieve/2019-

¶20

¶21

20/3075 dated 13.01.2020 and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to adhere to the provisions of the HR Policy.

¶22

The petitioner claims that she was working as an Assistant Executive Engineer in the respondentBelagavi Smart City Limited. The petitioner was appointed as such on contract basis with effect from 13.08.2018, initially, for a period of one year and subsequently, the agreement was renewed which, according to the petitioner, comes to an end on 22.08.2020. It is the grievance of the petitioner that she was on medical leave and during her leave period, the respondent under the impugned order relieved her from the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. Challenging the said relieving order dated 13.01.2020, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no notice whatsoever is issued to the petitioner before issuing the relieving order and before

¶24

¶25

terminating the contractual appointment. The conditions of the contractual appointment would require issuing of one month notice by either party, and even the said condition is not fulfilled.

¶26

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the impugned relieving order be treated as notice and the petitioner may be directed to submit her reply to Annexure-N dated 13.01.2020 which would be considered after hearing the petitioner and the orders would be passed in accordance with law.

¶27

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working on contractual basis as an Assistant Executive Engineer in the respondent-Belagavi Smart City Limited. By the impugned relieving letter dated 13.01.2020 Annexure-N, the petitioner is relieved of her duties as an Assistant Executive Engineer from the respondentBelagavi Smart City Limited. The relieving order is silent about the termination of the contract or about the

¶28

¶29

issuance of any notice before issuing the relieving order. Principles of natural justice would require minimum issuance of a notice before taking any adverse action. As no notice is issued before issuing relieving order bearing No.BeSmaCiLi/Administration/KA.Aa/154/relieve/2019-20 /3075 dated 13.01.2020, I am of the view that relieving order bearing No.BeSmaCiLi/ Administration/ KA.Aa/154/relieve/2019-20/3075 dated 13.01.2020, at Annexure-N, be treated as show-cause notice. The petitioner to submit her reply to Annexure-N within a period of 20 days from today. Thereafter, the respondent to pass orders in accordance with law and in accordance with terms and condition of appointment. With the above writ petition is disposed of.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

Kms

Rukhaiya D/O Bapusaheb Hadalge v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rukhaiya D/O Bapusaheb Hadalge v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhimappa S/O Satyappa Mokashi Vs the State of Karnataka

Vishnu S/O Lakshmappa Kambar Vs the State of Karnataka

Bhoomika Friends Recreation Club (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

Kallappa S/O Avvanna @ Appanna Pujannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Yellaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Bhimappa S/O Avvanna Koujalagi Vs the State of Karnataka