Disposed

The Director General v. Sijesh George

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2021WP/1723/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court observed that the impugned CAT order was already implemented via study leave granted to the employee. Considering the matter academic, the writ petition was disposed of, preventing the order from becoming a precedent.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of by permitting petitioners to raise issues in another appropriate case to prevent the impugned order from becoming a precedent.

The Director General Vs Sijesh George — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

-: 1 :-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

¶8

WRIT PETITION No.1723/2021 (S-CAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, CIG MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶11

THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, MODEL HOSPITAL, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010.

¶12

THE DEAN, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, MODEL HOSPITAL, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010.

¶13

... PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI VISHNU BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SIJESH GEORGE S/O. GEORGE K.T. KUM, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, WORKING AS STAFF NURSE, ESIC MODEL HOSPITAL, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010, RESIDING AT NO.43, GROUND FLOOR, 5^TH MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, MATTIKERE EXTENSION, BENGALURU - 560 054.

¶17

-: 2 :-

¶18

UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, (SOCIAL SECURITY DIVISION), SHRAMA SHAKTI BHAVAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶19

THE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND NEURO SCIENCES, HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 029. ... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI SATHEESH K.N., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1; SRI ARUN K.S., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTIONS IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 23.12.2020 PASSED IN O.A. NO.170/482/2020, PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE, AS PER ANNEXURE - D AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION; AND ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTIONS AS DEEMED JUST AND NECESSARY IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE ORDER AS TO THE COST.

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The legality and correctness of order dated 23/12/2020, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru, in O.A.No.170/482/2020 is called in question in this writ petition.

¶25

Learned senior counsel appearing for caveator/respondent No.1 submits that the order

¶26

-: 3 :-

¶27

impugned in this writ petition has already been given effect and the respondent has been granted study leave under Rules 50 and 51 of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 and the respondent has, pursuant to being relieved, proceeded on study leave which is for a period of two years. Therefore, the consideration of the writ petition on merits would be futile.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the impugned judgment would become a precedent for future cases and therefore, the respondent has been permitted to proceed on study leave subject to the result of this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition may be considered on merits.

¶29

We think that since the impugned order has been given effect to by the petitioners herein and the respondent has been relieved and permitted to proceed on study leave, it would be wholly academic exercise for us to consider the petition on merits of the impugned order at this stage. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed by permitting the petitioners herein to raise the issues raised in this writ petition in any other appropriate

¶30

-: 4 :-

¶31

case. In other words, the order impugned may not be a precedent in other similar cases.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

The Director General v. Sijesh George

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Director General v. Sijesh George

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Anuradha M N Vs Shri. Jagadish Habbu

Dr Jayakumar T M Vs the Union of India

Ms Namitha B Vs Mr Sidda Veerappa H

Cubbon Park Walkers Association Vs Mr. P Ravi Kumar IAS

Mr R Ramakrishnan Vs the Defence Secretary

Smt Preeti Bhandage Vs State of Karnataka