Dismissed

Sadashiv S/O. Hanamappa Pujar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Nov 2021WP/106805/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition where a Headmaster, reinstated after an illegal reversion, sought arrears of salary only to be denied as he failed to discharge teaching duties during the disputed period, and no specific court order mandated payment.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no direction given for payment of arrears of salary.

Sadashiv S/O. Hanamappa Pujar Vs the State… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.106805/2014 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SADASHIV S/O. HANAMAPPA PUJAR AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED R/O. MURAGHARAJENDRA NAGAR, PLOT NO. 87, NEAR HEBBALLI AGASI, DHARWAD.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. S.B.HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE )

¶11

A N D

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-01.

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER, COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, SHESHADRI ROAD, NEAR K.R.CIRCLE, BANGALORE-01.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, DHARWAD.

¶15

PRESIDENT/EXECUTIVE PRESIDENT, THE KARNATAKA EDUCATION BOARD

¶16

¶17

STATION ROAD, MALAMADDI, DHARWAD.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. VINAYAK S.KULKARNI AGA FOR R1-R3 SRI. SANGRAM S.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.05.2013 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4, A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREIN AS PER ANNEXURE-H; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO PAY ARREARS OF SALARY AMOUNTING TO RS.7,86,520=00 ALONG WITH REASONABLE RATE OF INTEREST TILL PAYMENT; AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO TAKE ACTION FOR FIXING THE SCALE OF PAY AND PENSION WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS FROM 30.11.2002 IN THE POST OF HEAD MASTER.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner was appointed as a Teacher on 01.07.1972 in the institution run by respondent No.4. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Headmaster on 29.06.2001. Thereafter the Tahasildar concerned cancelled the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. In view of cancellation of the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner, respondent No.4 reverted the petitioner to the post of Teacher. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed W.P. No.2616/2003 challenging the cancellation of caste

¶24

¶25

certificate issued by the Tahasildar concerned and also his reversion to the post of Teacher. This Court, by order dated 28.03.2005 allowed the writ petition and quashed the order passed by the Tahasildar concerned and also the consequential order of reversion passed by respondent No.4. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the petitioner was reinstated as Headmaster in the institution run by respondent No.4 .

¶26

The petitioner’s grievance is that though he was reinstated into service as Headmaster, respondent No.4 has not paid difference of salary payable to the petitioner from 02.12.2002 to 06.10.2005 i.e., the period during which the

¶27

petitioner was reverted to the post of Teacher. The representation submitted by the petitioner to pay the difference of salary was rejected by respondent No.4 on the ground that the petitioner has not worked during the period from 02.12.2002 to 06.10.2005 and also on the ground that there was no specific order by this Court to pay the difference of salary. Hence, this writ petition.

¶28

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

¶30

that the petitioner having been illegally reverted to the post of Teacher and the same having been set aside by this Court, respondent No.4 is under an obligation to pay the difference of salary upon his reinstatement as Headmaster, but respondent No.4 has passed the impugned order refusing the claim of the petitioner and the same is not sustainable in law.

¶31

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.4 would submit that the petitioner, upon his reversion to the post of Teacher, remained absent and he did not discharge his duties as a Teacher and, in the absence of any specific order to reinstate the petitioner with all the benefits, the claim of the petitioner has been rightly refused by respondent No.4 and the same does not warrant any interference.

¶32

Learned Additional Government Advocate

¶33

appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 would reiterate the

¶34

¶35

submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No.4 and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶36

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶37

Admittedly, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Headmaster and upon cancellation of the caste certificate issued in his favour, the order of promotion was withdrawn and the petitioner was reverted to the post of Teacher. This Court by order dated 28.03.2005 passed in W.P. No.2616/2003 set aside the order passed by the Tahasildar concerned canceling the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner and also the consequential order of reversion passed by respondent No.4. Admittedly, there is no direction by this Court to pay difference of salary during the period of reversion till reinstatement of the petitioner as Headmaster. Even otherwise, the petitioner had not discharged his duties as a Teacher during the period of reversion and respondent No.4 applying the principle of ‘no work no pay’ has rightly rejected the claim

¶38

¶39

of the petitioner. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by respondent No.4. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

Kms

Sadashiv S/O. Hanamappa Pujar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadashiv S/O. Hanamappa Pujar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G Malleshi @ Malleshappa S/O. Rangappa Vs the Divisional Controller

M.L. Gani Vs the Government of Karnataka

Smt.Drakshyani Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Yamuna W/O. Laxman Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Ganapati Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Krishna Shakar Bhat Pujar Vs Joint Director of Land Records