Allowed

Sri S.N. Shekar v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2024WP/62591/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A KEONICS employee dismissed in 1998 was reinstated with continuity of service under a settlement before the Division Bench. The corporation denied earned leave for the interregnum period. The Court held the employee deemed in service from dismissal to reinstatement, quashed the impugned orders and directed grant of earned leave, medical reimbursement and leave travel allowance; seniority relief d

What did the court decide?

Impugned OM and endorsement quashed; respondents directed to grant earned leave for 22.06.1998-17.02.2012 per Service Rules para 62, plus medical reimbursement and LTA, within three months; seniority

Sri S.N. Shekar Vs the Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:39510 WP No. 62591 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 62591 OF 2016 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. S.N. SHEKAR AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI S.NARAYANACHAR, NO.113, 6^TH CROSS, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, CHIKKA KALLASANDRA, BENGALURU-560061.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. MANJULA KULKARNI, FOR SRI. NAIK V.S., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (KEONICS), 2^ND FLOOR, TTMC 'A' BLOCK, BMTC, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027

¶13

THE DIRECTOR-OPERATIONS, KARNATAKA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (KEONICS), 2^ND FLOOR, TTMC 'A' BLOCK, BMTC, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. NISHANTH A.V., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS AND QUASH THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM BEARING REF. NO.KSEDC/PER/GM/2012

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39510 WP No. 62591 of 2016

¶18

DATED 26.10.2012 AND THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING REF. NO.KSEDC/EST/DO/ED/2016-17 DATED 18.10.2016 ISSUED BY SECOND RESPONDENT THE ORIGINALS OF WHICH ARE PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURES-F AND K RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The petitioner has challenged an Office Memorandum bearing No.KSEDC/PER/GM/2012 dated 26.10.2012 (Annexure - F) as well as an endorsement bearing No.KSEDC/EST/DO/ED/2016-17 dated 18.10.2016 (Annexure - K) both issued by the respondent No.2 in terms of which, the earned leave to which, he was entitled to, was denied. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of Mandamus to direct the respondents to extend the benefit of leave encashment by calculating the earned leave during 22.06.1998 to 17.02.2012 and the extend the benefits of medical reimbursement, leave travel allowance.

¶22

(i) The petitioner joined the services of the respondent No.1 as an Engineer in the year 1984. He was later designated as an Assistant Manager. During the year 1995, the respondent No.1 initiated disciplinary proceedings, which

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39510 WP No. 62591 of 2016

¶24

culminated in an order of dismissal from service on 22.06.1998. A statutory appeal preferred there from before the respondent No.1 met the same fate.

¶25

(ii) The petitioner then challenged the order of his dismissal from service in W.P.No.18969/2006. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in terms of the order dated 13.10.2011, set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement of the petitioner with 25% backwages from the date of his dismissal till reinstatement. He was also entitled for continuity of service but without any consequential benefits.

¶26

(iii) An appeal was preferred by the respondent No.1 in W.A.No.17174/2011 which was connected with W.A.No.17299/2011 filed by the petitioner herein. The petitioner and the respondents entered into a settlement in terms of which, the order of reinstatement was upheld and the respondents agreed for continuity of service of the petitioner as regards pay fixation, leave and increments.

¶27

(iv) Consequent thereto, the petitioner was reinstated as a Manager and he reported to duty on 17.02.2012. The respondent No.1 passed an order dated 18.07.2012 fixing the

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:39510 WP No. 62591 of 2016

¶30

scale of pay and also seniority in the cadre of Manager (Technical).

¶31

(v) The petitioner filed a representation dated 25.07.2012 contending that the respondents had sanctioned 62 days of earned leave calculated from the date of reinstatement though he was entitled to earned leave from the date of his entry into service. He also claimed that sick leave was not sanctioned to him. He contended that he joined service on 23.05.1984 and was the senior most in the cadre of Manager and hence placing him at Sl.No.8 in the list of seniority of Manager (Technical) is wrong.

¶32

(vi) The respondent No.2 rejected the said

¶33

representation of the petitioner in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 26.10.2012 on the ground that as per the Service Rules of the respondents, earned leave was calculated at one eleventh of the days spent on duty. The petitioner then submitted a representation dated 03.12.2015 contesting the earned leave that was sanctioned to him but also in respect of his seniority in Manager (Technical) cadre. The respondent

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39510 WP No. 62591 of 2016

¶35

No.2 again rejected his request in terms of the endorsement dated 18.10.2016.

¶36

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the services of the petitioner was reinstated with continuity of service for the purpose of pay revision, leave and increments, the respondents could not have granted earned leave from the date of his reinstatement. She therefore, contended that the petitioner was entitled for earned leave from the date of his dismissal from service till date of reinstatement. Likewise, the petitioner was entitled to medical reimbursement and leave travel allowance.

¶38

The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing a detailed statement of objections. They have contended that the earned leave to which the petitioner was entitled to was calculated by applying Paragraph No.62 of Service Rules, which mandated that earned leave would be calculated at one eleventh of the days spent on duty. It is contended that the

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:39510 WP No. 62591 of 2016

¶40

petitioner is not entitled for any earned leave since he did not work from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement.

¶41

The learned counsel for the respondents reiterated

¶42

the above contentions and contended that the petitioner is not entitled for any earned leave.

¶43

I have considered the submissions made by the

¶44

learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶45

A perusal of the settlement arrived at before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.17174/2011 c/w W.A.No.17299/2011 establishes beyond doubt that the respondents had agreed to continue the services of the petitioner for the purpose of pay fixation, leave and increments. If the petitioner was reinstated into service, he was entitled for continuity of service. In so far as consequential benefits regarding pay fixation and leave are concerned, the same had to be sanctioned. This meant that the earned leave had to be calculated for the period commencing from 22.06.1998 when he was dismissed from service till 17.02.2012 when he was reinstated into service. In addition, the petitioner was entitled

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:39510 WP No. 62591 of 2016

¶48

to medical reimbursement and sick leave in accordance with Service Rules of the respondents, which could not have been denied to the petitioner since he is deemed to be in service from the date of his dismissal till date of reinstatement. The endorsement issued by the respondent No.2 that the petitioner

¶49

is entitled to earned leave calculated at one eleventh of the days spent on duty by deducting the period between the date of his dismissal till the date of his reinstatement, is thoroughly faulty and warrants interference.

¶50

Consequently, this writ petition is allowed . The

¶51

impugned Office Memorandum bearing

¶52

No.KSEDC/PER/GM/2012 dated 26.10.2012 (Annexure - F) as well as an endorsement bearing No.KSEDC/EST/DO/ED/201617 dated 18.10.2016 (Annexure - K) issued by the respondent No.2 are quashed. The respondents are directed to grant earned leave to the petitioner from 22.06.1998 to 17.02.2012 in accordance with the Service Rules at paragraph No.62. In addition, the petitioner is entitled to medical reimbursement and leave travel allowance in accordance with Service Rules of

¶53

the respondents. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the Order.

¶54

NC: 2024:KHC:39510 WP No. 62591 of 2016

¶55

¶56

Since the petitioner has belatedly challenged his seniority, that

¶57

too after retirement, he is not entitled to any relief to change

his seniority.

Sd/-

(R. NATARAJ)

JUDGE

PMR

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Sri S.N. Shekar v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S.N. Shekar v. the Managing Director

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 Kakasaheb Narasgouda Patil @ K N Patil Vs Managing Director Karnataka State Tourism Corporation Ltd.

Dr.Suma B Sathenahalli Vs the Government Dental College

Sri P Maruthi Vs the Mission Director

Smt. Srilakshmi Vs State of Karnataka

Somashekaraiah Vs the Executive Engineer(Elec)

Sri. Tummala Premakumar Vs the Board of Directors