Disposed

Sri Prakash R Kurchagi v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC4 Sept 2024WP/19220/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order denying interim relief against recovery of damage licence fee from the petitioner's salary. The High Court directed the Tribunal to hear the parties on the fixed date and decide the original application within twenty days thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; Tribunal directed to decide OA No.359/2024 within 20 days of hearing on 04.10.2024.

Sri Prakash R Kurchagi Vs the Commissioner — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:36201-DB WP No. 19220 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 19220 OF 2024 (S-CAT)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI. PRAKASH B. KURCHAGI, S/O LATE BHEEMESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.39, HP NAGAR EXTENSION, 2^ND CROSS, MAIN STREET, BEML NAGAR, KGF - 563 115, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶12

Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

(BY SRI. PRADYUMNA.M.R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. N.G. PHADKE, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

…PETITIONER

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN, AN AUTONOMOUS BODY UNDER MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, 18, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, S.J. MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 016.

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:36201-DB WP No. 19220 of 2024

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN, REGIONAL OFFICE, K. KAMARAJA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 042.

¶19

THE PRINCIPAL, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, M.G. RAILWAY COLONY, BENGALURU - 560 023.

¶20

THE PRINCIPAL, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, BEML NAGAR, KGF - 563 115, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHAT VISHNU JANARDHANA, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26/06/2024 AT ANNEXURE-B, PASSED BY THE LEARNED CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH IN OA NO.359/2024, AS THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL HAS ORDERED NOTICE WITHOUT GRANTING INTERIM RELIEF, ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND

¶25

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36201-DB WP No. 19220 of 2024

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)

¶29

The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 26.06.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench (‘the Tribunal’ for short) in OA No.359/2024, whereby the Tribunal has rejected the prayer of interim relief sought by the petitioner in the aforesaid original application.

¶30

Suffice to state, the respondents sought to recover the damage licence fee from the petitioner through his salary. The Tribunal, after noting the facts, by a reasoned order, denied the prayer.

¶31

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is, the next date of hearing in the OA before the Tribunal is 04.10.2024 and appropriate shall be till such time the Tribunal decides the OA, the respondents be restrained from making any recovery. He states in the eventuality the petitioner succeeds before the Tribunal,

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:36201-DB WP No. 19220 of 2024

¶33

then the amount which would be recovered by the

¶34

respondents has to be restituted.

¶35

The submission is prima facie appealing. Noting the fact that the date of hearing is 04.10.2024, we dispose of the present petition directing the Tribunal to hear the counsel the parties on 04.10.2024 and decide the OA within 20 days thereafter.

¶36

With the above, the petition is disposed of .

¶37

At the outset, we take on record the submission

¶38

made by learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the order dated 23.07.2024, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs.75,000/- with the competent authority.

¶39

Sd/(V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE

¶40

Sd/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶41

PA, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

Sri Prakash R Kurchagi v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Prakash R Kurchagi v. the Commissioner

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

Smt. Dayavathi Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Subramani Vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (Bescom)

Centre Fore Development of Advanced Computing (Formerly National Centre for Software Technology) Vs Mrs. Ragini Bhartari

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs M/S Mangaluru City Corporation

C. Kumaravelu Vs Union of India

Sri. Sanjay Babu N.C. Vs the State of Karnataka