A cooperative bank clerk challenged rejection of her dispute claiming salary for a compulsory waiting period and medical leave, alleging branches refused her duty report during transfers. The court found she did not actually report to duty at transferred places and treated her absence as leave without pay, dismissing the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:33126 WP No. 38049 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 38049 OF 2013 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. D.P. LALITHAMMA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS W/O SRI NARAYANA RAIKAR WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION CLERK PRIMARY COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. CHANNAGIRI ROAD, BHADRAVATHI, SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.H.HEROOR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
O/O THE KARNATAKA STATE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. TIPPU SULTHAN PALACE ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE-560018.
SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577427.
NC: 2024:KHC:33126 WP No. 38049 of 2013
SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577201.
THE KARNATAKA STATE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. SHIMOGA BRANCH, NEAR OLD DCC BANK, SHIMOGA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577201.
SORABA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577429.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA R HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO.LDB:1:DAVE:17:2009-10 DATED 24.12.2011 PASSED BY THE REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-CC AND ETC.
NC: 2024:KHC:33126 WP No. 38049 of 2013
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No. ಎ �.�.�
:1:�ಾ�ೆ :17:2009-10 dated 24.12.2011 passed by the
respondent No.7 rejecting a dispute raised under Rule 71 of CCA Rules of Karnataka State Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Limited ('KASCARD Bank'). The petitioner has also sought for a declaration to treat the period of absence from 10.08.2006 to 06.12.2007 as the period of compulsory waiting and to sanction the leave for the period from 14.09.2005 to 02.10.2005, 18.08.2006 to 15.10.2006. Consequently, she has sought for direction to the respondents to release the pay, allowances and leave salary admissible to her. She has also sought for time bound advancement for having completed twenty years of service and to pay arrears of D.A. for the period 01.04.1998 to 09.12.1999.
NC: 2024:KHC:33126 WP No. 38049 of 2013
transferred to Primary Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank ('PCARD Bank'), Kadur, as per the order dated 12.09.2005 and was relieved from duty on 17.09.2005. The respondent No.1 issued an order dated 01.10.2005 to continue her services at the respondent No.2 and directed the petitioner to report for duty at respondent No.2. She thereafter reported to duty at respondent No.2 on 03.10.2005. The petitioner contends that for the period from 17.09.2005 till 02.10.2005, she was not paid any salary as it had to be treated as compulsory waiting period. The petitioner applied for medical leave for the said period and the Manager of the respondent No.2 recommended to the respondent No.1 to sanction the leave. However, respondent No.1 neither sanctioned the leave for the said period nor issued any endorsement rejecting the request for leave. The Manager of the respondent No.2 addressed a letter dated 06.10.2005 to the respondent No.1 stating that it was not in need of the services of the petitioner. The President and the Manager of the respondent No.2 also issued an endorsement dated 22.10.2005 stating that the services of the petitioner was not required at
NC: 2024:KHC:33126 WP No. 38049 of 2013
the respondent No.2. The petitioner therefore, contends that from 01.10.2005 till 22.10.2005, salary was not paid.
NC: 2024:KHC:33126 WP No. 38049 of 2013
29.04.2006 at the respondent No.5, who also did not take her to duty. The petitioner was again transferred on 12.06.2006 to the Shivamogga Branch. The petitioner then reported to duty at the Shivamogga Branch/respondent No.5.
issued assigning reasons for not granting leave that the petitioner was entitled to, under Rule 18 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Rules, 1960. The petitioner was thereafter transferred to PCARD Bank, Sringeri on 21.08.2006. However, since the petitioner was on leave, she was unable to report to duty at PCARD Bank, Sringeri. The petitioner represented to the respondent No.1 on 09.09.2006 stating that she was not in a position to report to duty at Sringeri and requested to transfer to any place nearby such as Soraba, Shikaripura, Siddapura or Sagar. however, respondent No.1 did not consider the request of the petitioner.
Member Secretary of respondent No.1 shall request the Federal Society i.e., respondent No.5 to debit the account of the concerned Primary Bank and credit the same to the fund of the Committee, which would be given to the employee concerned. She further contends that without an order of transfer by the Member Secretary of respondent No.1, no employee can be removed from duty under any circumstance. The petitioner alleges that respondent No.1 and respondent No.5 have not taken any action to settle her claim though as per the Circular dated 16.03.2006, the respondent No.5 is expected to arrange and settle all dues of salary, increment etc., The petitioner alleges that she was transferred indiscriminately from time to time and at all these places, she was never paid salary. She contends that when she was on medical leave, the respondent No.5 did not sanction the leave, which was to her credit and though she was entitled to draw the leave salary in terms of Rule 18 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960. The respondent No.5 has not even recommended to the respondent No.1 for sanction of the leave nor any endorsement is issued rejecting it.
NC: 2024:KHC:33126 WP No. 38049 of 2013
granted an interim order staying the order of transfer, if she was not relieved. The petitioner contends that she reported to duty on 16.10.2006 at the respondent No.5 but was not allowed to work. She contends that respondent Nos.1 and 5 have not settled the arrears of pay and allowances including for the period of waiting and the leave salary. She contends that W.P.No.14053/2006 was disposed off on 05.09.2008 directing the respondent No.1 to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner. Following above, respondent No.5 settled a sum of Rs.17,000/- and after deducting LIC, PF, Group Insurance etc., However, the amount for the period 17.09.2005 to 06.12.2007 amounting to Rs.3,79,608/- was not settled. The petitioner contends that respondent No.5 paid a sum of Rs.34,489/- out of Rs.3,79,608/-. Therefore, there is a balance of Rs.3,45,119/-. The petitioner contends that the respondent No.5 has to pay Rs.13,722/- as arrears of salary including D.A.
NC: 2024:KHC:33126 WP No. 38049 of 2013
from 01.04.1998 to 12.12.1999 when she was worked at Soraba. The petitioner contends that since the direction in W.P.No.14053/2006 was not complied, she filed Contempt Petition in C.C.C.No.704/2009. In the said contempt petition, the respondents took a contention that payments were made to the petitioner. Consequently, contempt petition was dismissed on 11.01.2010 reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the endorsement issued by the respondents.
constitution of a Common Cadre Committee for redressal of grievance of the employees serving in the PCARD Bank. She contends that she raised a dispute before the respondent No.7 highlighting her grievance. However, the respondent No.7 held that the dispute cannot be accepted and hence, dismissed it on 24.12.2011.
NC: 2024:KHC:33126 WP No. 38049 of 2013
for the next order of posting. He contends that even the leave salary on medical leave was not sanctioned and paid. He contends that the period taken for reporting to duty on every transfer should be treated as compulsory waiting. He contends that the period during which, the petitioner did not report to duty was not due to any reason attributable to her but was due to fact that the branches where she was posted, were not accepting her duties. He contends that in the dispute raised before the respondent No.7 under Regulation 71 of the Common Cadre Committee Regulations, the officer was required to redress the grievance of the petitioner. However, the respondent No.7 had rejected the dispute on the ground that the branches of the respondents had not taken the petitioner to duty since she had allegedly not discharged her duties properly. He contends that when she applied for leave from 18.08.2006 to 15.10.2006, she did not obtain sanction from the competent authority though it noticed that she did not report to duty at the respondent No.2 on 10.08.2006 but applied leave upto 15.10.2006. He therefore, contends that the respondent No.7 failed to appreciate the factual aspects of the case. He contends that when the petitioner had reported to
duty and if the branch did not accept her duty, she was expected to submit another duty report to the same branch and report the issue to the District Coordinating Branch to facilitate the District Officer to advise the branch suitably. He contended that though the petitioner had adhered to all the formalities, the authorities concerned did not take her to duty. Hence, he contends that the petitioner is entitled to treat the period from 10.08.2006 to 06.12.2007 as a compulsory waiting period and to sanction the leave for the period 14.09.2005 to 02.10.2005 and 18.08.2006 to 15.10.2006. He therefore, prays that the petition be allowed and the reliefs sought for be granted.
NC: 2024:KHC:33126 WP No. 38049 of 2013
to any relief. They contend that the petitioner is entitled to claim salary for work done and not for not doing any work. Nonetheless, they contend that the petitioner was given the arrears as per the direction of this Court in W.P.No.14053/2006. They submit that the petitioner has not placed on record the order passed releasing the arrears. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has placed on record the order dated 03.04.2009 where it was recorded that the petitioner was transferred from KASCARD Bank, Shivamogga on 09.08.2006 to PCARD Bank, Shikaripura. However, she did not report to duty at PCARD Bank. Later, she was transferred to PCARD Bank, Sringeri on 21.08.2006, where too she did not report to duty. She was then transferred to PCARD Bank, Koppa on 07.12.2007 and that she reported to duty at Koppa. He contended that from 10.08.2006 to 06.12.2007, she remained absent. He contended that for the period 03.05.2006 to 11.05.2006 and 13.05.2006 to 29.05.2006, it was treated that she was on leave. He contended that the petitioner was granted the benefit of 11 days of casual leave upto 04.08.2006. However, the period between 10.08.2006 to 06.12.2007 was treated as leave without pay under Regulation 16(d)(6) of
PCARD Bank Employees' Service Regulations. He contends that the petitioner did not produce any documents to establish that she had reported to duty at the places, where she was transferred and hence, is not entitled to any reliefs in this petition.
11.08.2006 stating that she had reported to duty and enclosed therewith a self taking over charge report. The petitioner again reiterated this on 14.08.2006. However, this letter was allegedly acknowledged on 19.08.2006 generating suspicion of its veracity. Following this she allegedly submitted a letter dated 18.08.2006 claiming medical leave for the period 18.08.2006 to 18.09.2006 and enclosed therewith a certificate of a doctor certifying that she had undergone hysterectomy without giving any details about the date of the procedure done on her. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was transferred to Sringeri Branch on 21.08.2006 but nothing is placed on record that she reported to duty at Sringeri. However, she submitted a representation dated 09.09.2006 to the respondent No.1 requesting for transfer to any nearby place at either Soraba, Shikaripura, Siddapura or Sagara. She again made a request before the respondent No.1 on 15.09.2006 for medical leave from 19.09.2006 to 19.10.2006. On 16.10.2006, she submitted a letter to report to duty at Shivamogga Branch by which time, she was already transferred to Sringeri. It is therefore clear that the petitioner did not report to duty at either Shivamogga or Sringeri but continued to dodge reporting to duty. Therefore,
NC: 2024:KHC:33126 WP No. 38049 of 2013
it is evident that the petitioner had procrastinated in reporting to duty citing medical grounds, which was not considered by the sanctioning authority. Nonetheless, without sanction of leave, the petitioner continued to be on leave and did not report to duty at the transferred place. Therefore, the respondent No.1 was justified in treating the period between 10.08.2006 to 06.12.2007 as leave without pay. The respondent No.7 after perusing the records was right in holding that the petitioner was not entitled to salary and other allowances during her period of absence from duty.
same is dismissed .
Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE
PMR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the period from 10.08.2006 to 06.12.2007 when the petitioner's duty reports were allegedly not accepted should be treated as compulsory waiting with pay.
Whether the petitioner was entitled to sanction of medical leave and leave salary for the periods claimed in 2005-06.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. D.P. Lalithamma
The Member Secretary Common Cadre Committee for PCARD Bank Employees
The Manager Primary Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Shikaripur
The Manager Primary Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Shringeri
The Manager Primary Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Shimoga
The Manager The Karnataka State Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Shimoga Branch
R. Nataraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
