Disposed

Shwetha Mahabaleshwar Naik v. Director

Karnataka HC7 Feb 2023WP/2226/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a contract typist seeking relief for non-payment of salary. It directed the petitioner to file a representation with the first respondent to initiate action against the third respondent, reserving liberty to prosecute such representation within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; liberty reserved for petitioner to file representation with first respondent to initiate action against third respondent.

Shwetha Mahabaleshwar Naik Vs Director — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 2226 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 WRIT PETITION NO. 2226 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHWETHA MAHABALESHWAR NAIK D/O MAHABALESHWAR NAIK AGED 26 YEARS

¶9

TYPIST OFFICE OF ASST PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OFFICE ACJ (JR DN) AND JMFC COURT SIRSI, KARWAR UTTAR KANNADA DISTICT …PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. KETHAN KUMAR.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

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

¶12

AND:

¶13

DIRECTOR PROSECUTIUON AND GOVERNMENT LITIGATION 6TH FLOOR, KHB COMPLEX CAUVERY BHAVAN KEMEPGOWDA ROAD BENGALURU 560009

¶14

LAW OFFICER MAGNALORE ZONE

¶15

2 - WP No. 2226 of 2023

¶16

MANGALORE, D K DIST-575001

¶17

SAINATH SECURITY FORCE PUJARI BUILDING NEAR KSRTC WORK SHOP JORAPUREPETH, VIJAYAPUR 586101 REP BY PROPRIETOR SRI B S MANNURU

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. M.S.NAGARAJA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 TO IMPLEMENT THE DIRECTION DTD 14.09.2022 IN NO.DPN.BAAMUU.01.2022-23 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND DIRECTION DTD 16.11.2022 IN NO.DPN.BAAMUU.01.2022-23 VIDE ANNEXURE-F ISSUED BY R1.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner is working as a Typist/Clerk with the office of the Assistant Public Prosecutor, ACJ (Jr. Dn.) on a contract basis through the third respondent – M/s Sainath Security Force. It is undisputed that the first respondent extends manpower assistance to the office of the Assistant Public Prosecutor, Sirsi,

¶24

¶25

WP No. 2226 of 2023

¶26

Karwar through third party entities. The petitioner is aggrieved by the third respondent’s failure to disburse salary notwithstanding the first respondent’s directions (Annexure-F).

¶27

It seen from Annexure-F dated 16.11.2022 that the first respondent has directed the third respondent to take necessary measures to ensure that salaries are disbursed to the petitioner observing that she has not been paid salary for over nine [9] months. The first respondent has also observed that if there is any failure to disburse salary, notwithstanding the direction, the third respondent will be responsible for orders that could be passed¹ .

¶28

1. �ೕಲ�ಂಡಅಭ��ೆ ಸಂ�ೆ�ಯವರು 9 �ಂಗ�ಂದಸಂ�ಾವ�ೆ �ಾವ��ಲ � ೆಂದು ಉ!ೆ�ೕಖ -(1) ರ ಪತ%ದ&� ವ'ೕಲರು �ೋ)ಸು ಕಳ,-�ರು.ಾ/0ೆ , ಆದ23ಂದ ಈ ಕೂಡ!ೇ ಸದ3ಅಭ��ೆ ಸಂ�ಾವ�ೆಯನು6 �ಾವ��ೆ ಸಂಬಂ8�ದಂ.ೆ ಅಗತ� ಕ%ಮವ-� , ಈ ಕ:ೇ3�ೆ ;ಾ-�ಯನು6 ಸ&�ಸುವಂ.ೆ ಮ.ೊ/�< ಈ ಮೂಲಕ =ಮ�ೆ ಸೂ>ಸ!ಾ?@ೆ . ��ಸ!ಾ?@ೆ . ತABದ&� ಮುಂCನ DಾವE@ೇ ವ��3ಕ/ ಆ@ೇಶGೆ� =ೕ�ೇ�ೇರHೊIೆ�ಾರ0ಾ?ರು�/ೕ3ಎಂದುw½¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

¶29

¶30

WP No. 2226 of 2023

¶31

Sri. Kethan Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. M.S.Nagaraja, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the first and the second respondents, are heard in the light of this grievance. It is obvious from Annexure-F that the first respondent has contemplated orders that may not be in the third respondent’s interest if the petitioner’s salary is not disbursed despite receipt of Annexure-F. The petitioner’s grievance is not just because the third respondent has not disbursed the salary but also because the first respondent has not taken any action.

¶32

In the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that, without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to recover salary arrears from the third respondent, there must be a direction to the first respondent to take necessary action as indicated in Annexure-F against the third respondent if salaries are not indeed credited to the petitioner. Therefore, the following:

¶33

¶34

WP No. 2226 of 2023

¶35

ORDER

¶36

The petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a representation with the first respondent – the Director, Prosecution and Government Litigation - for initiation of action as contemplated under Annexure-F against the third respondent for non-disbursement of her salary.

¶37

If such representation is filed by the petitioner enclosing a certified copy of this order within fifteen [15] days from the date of receipt thereof, the first respondent is permitted to take appropriate action as contemplated in Annexure-F and communicate to the petitioner the outcome within 4 [four] weeks therefrom.

¶38

SD/JUDGE

¶39

Shwetha Mahabaleshwar Naik v. Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shwetha Mahabaleshwar Naik v. 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

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

Sujatha. S Vs Raytharashakari Sanga Ltd.

Sri M Chandrashekar Vs the State of Karnataka