Disposed

Sujatha. S v. Raytharashakari Sanga Ltd.

Karnataka HC7 Feb 2023WP/2093/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Appellate Tribunal to decide on the merits of a revision petition regarding a demotion within four weeks. It ordered the first respondent to credit salary for December 2022 and January 2023 and permitted the petitioner to attend work upon recovery.

What did the court decide?

Appellate Tribunal must decide revision petition within four weeks; first respondent must credit salary for December 2022 and January 2023; petitioner permitted to attend work after recovery.

Sujatha. S Vs Raytharashakari Sanga Ltd. — Cooperative Societies | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 2093 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 2093 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SUJATHA. S AGED 40 YEARS W/O SATISH NAIK R/AT NEAR WATER TANK, KUKKEHALLI, UDUPI DISTRICT KARNATAKA – 576124.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAMA RAMACHANDRA IYER, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

RAYTHARASHAKARI SANGA LTD HIRIADKA DHANALAKSHMI BUILDING NEAR BUS STAND HIRIADKA, UDUPI DISTRICT KARNATAKA - 576 113 REP BY ITS PRESIDENT ASHOK KUMAR SHETTY.

¶15

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES KUNDAPURA SUB DIVISION KUNDAPURA, UDUPI DISTRICT KARNATAKA - 576 217

¶16

¶17

WP No. 2093 of 2023

¶18

MOHAMMED SUHAN

¶19

ADVOCATE/ENQUIRY OFFICER OFFICE AT 2^ND FLOOR, VADIRAJA COMPLEX OPPOSITE MITHRA HOSPITAL OLD POST OFFICE ROAD, UDUPI DISTRICT KARNATAKA - 576 217.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.K. PRASANNA SHETTY., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI. M.S. NAGARAJA, AGA FOR R2; R3 DISPENSED WITH)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU IN REVISION PETITION NO.57/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A DATED 25/11/2022 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; DIRECTIONS TO THE R-2 TO DISPOSE OF THE MATTER COMPLAINT NO.820/2022-23 AT THE EARLIEST.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner, who is working as ‘a Junior Assistant’ with the first respondent from the month of July 2007, is aggrieved by the order dated 25.11.2022 in Revision Petition No.57/2022 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal [for short, ‘KAT’ ]. Smt. Rama Ramachandra Iyer, the learned counsel for the

¶26

¶27

WP No. 2093 of 2023

¶28

petitioner, Sri. K Prasanna Shetty, the learned counsel who is on caveat for the first respondent, and Sri. M S Nagaraja, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the second respondent, are heard for final disposal of the petition, and given the nature of controversy in the present petition, the service of notice to the third respondent stands dispensed with.

¶29

The first respondent by the Order dated 14.09.2022, after a purported enquiry, has demoted the petitioner from being a ‘Junior Assistant’ to an ‘Attender’ . The petitioner has raised a dispute under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 before the second respondent in Complaint No.820/2022-23 and the second respondent, considering the petitioner’s application for interim order, has granted stay on 10.10.2022 staying the operation of the first respondent’s order dated 14.09.2022 directing the first respondent to continue the petitioner as a ‘Junior Assistant’. The first respondent has called

¶30

¶31

WP No. 2093 of 2023

¶32

this interim order dated 10.10.2022 in question before the KAT in Revision Petition No.57/2022, and the KAT considering the first respondent’s application for interim order, has granted stay of the second respondent’s order. As such, the petitioner’s demotion is now restored.

¶33

If the petitioner contends that the initiation of enquiry and demotion Order dated 14.09.2022 are because she has availed her remedy under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities] Act, 1989 as she was subjected to harassment, the first respondent contends that the enquiry and the subsequent order are in the light of certain defamatory and unfounded posts/messages circulated by the petitioner, an assertion contested by the petitioner.

¶34

These rival contentions touch upon the merits of the complaint that will have to be examined by the second respondent. As regards the present

¶35

¶36

WP No. 2093 of 2023

¶37

controversy, Smt. Rama Ramachandra Iyer submits that the petitioner is presently hospitalized because of her ill health and she would be discharged over the next three to four days; she must be permitted to attend work after necessary convalescence but she will suffer ignominy of being a demoted employee because of the interim order granted by the KAT. Smt. Rama Ramachandra Iyer also submits that the petitioner is put to severe financial hardship inasmuch as the first respondent has not credited salaries for the months commencing from December 2022.

¶38

5. Sri. K Prasanna Shetty, the learned

¶39

counsel for the first respondent, submits that because the complainant has challenged the Order dated 14.09.2022 before the second respondent, who has granted the interim order on 10.10.2022, the salary for the month of December 2022 is withheld but the first respondent shall pay salary for the two

¶40

¶41

WP No. 2093 of 2023

¶42

months. The petitioner cannot have a grievance against the order dated 14.09.2022 because it is after duly constituted enquiry.

¶43

It cannot be gainsaid that the first

¶44

respondent’s grievance with the second respondent’s interim order dated 10.10.2022 will have to be considered by the KAT after due opportunity, and this Court could only consider the interim arrangement that must prevail until the first respondent’s petition is considered by the KAT. In the circumstances in which the proceedings are initiated by the first respondent against the petitioner, the petitioner’s hospitalization and that no salary has been credited to the petitioner [perhaps justifiably for the last two months], this Court is of the considered view that the KAT must be called upon to decide on the Revision Petition itself within a timeframe after due opportunity and the first respondent must forthwith credit the salary for the

¶45

¶46

WP No. 2093 of 2023

¶47

months of December 2022 and January 2023 as admissible in the light of the Order dated 14.09.2022 subject to final outcome.

¶48

This Court must also observe that in the circumstances in which the petitioner finds herself today, the first respondent must not take any action, if she is unable to attend to her work until the first respondent’s petition is decided on merits by the KAT. Hence the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

[a] The petition stands disposed of

¶51

calling upon the KAT to decide on the merits of the first respondent’s Revision Petition No.57/2022 within four [4] weeks from the date an application is moved by

¶52

the petitioner for advancement consequent to this order. The petitioner shall ensure that such application is filed

¶53

¶54

WP No. 2093 of 2023

¶55

within a week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶56

[b] The first respondent shall credit to the petitioner’s account salary as admissible to the petitioner in the light of the order dated 14.09.2022. It is needless to observe that all contentions are left open to be considered in the appropriate proceedings.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

AN/-

Sujatha. S v. Raytharashakari Sanga Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujatha. S v. Raytharashakari Sanga Ltd.

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

Sri Chikkabasavegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

K. Chandrashekhar Vs Chief Election Commissioner

Suraj Prasad Swrankar Vs Kudremukha Iron Ore Company Limited

Miss D Manjula Vs the State of Karnataka

Shwetha Mahabaleshwar Naik Vs Director

Sri M Chandrashekar Vs the State of Karnataka