Disposed¶48

The District Ayush Arogya v. Vijayalakshmi Dyamanna Saruru

Karnataka HC6 Aug 2025WA/100269/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WA No. 100269 of 2025 (NC: 2025:KHC-D:9911-DB), High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, decided 06.08.2025, coram S.Sunil Dutt Yadav and Vijaykumar A.Patil, JJ. Keywords: stigmatic termination without enquiry; contractual/temporary employee; Attender; District Ayush Hospital Hungund, Bagalkote; reinstatement; 50% backwages given up; show-cause notice; Legislative Assembly election; Nar Singh Pal Vs. Union of India (2000) 3 SCC 588; Karnataka High Court Act 1961 S.4; writ appeal disposed, reinstatement within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal disposed of; appellant/State directed to take steps for reinstatement of the respondent/employee within four weeks from receipt of copy of the order; the 50% backwages direction set aside; pending applications disposed of as not surviving for consideration. ¶48

The District Ayush Arogya Vs Vijayalakshmi Dyamanna Saruru — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the Division Bench should interfere with the learned Single Judge's order setting aside the termination of a contractual/temporary employee, given that the termination was a stigmatic order passed without enquiry. +1 more

¶38

Court's answer

The court accepted the legal position that even a contractual employee cannot be terminated by a stigmatic order without enquiry, a position the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate was unable to controvert.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

Since the termination order at Annexure-D recorded a finding that the termination was on the ground of misconduct, the Bench found no reason to interfere with the learned Single Judge's order setting aside the termination.

¶38

Key takeaways

The learned Single Judge's order was upheld except the direction at clause II of the operative portion awarding 50% backwages, which was set aside in light of the petitioner's counsel giving up the backwages claim at the time of argument.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench (S.Sunil Dutt Yadav and Vijaykumar A.Patil, JJ.) of the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, disposed of the State's writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 against the learned Single Judge's order in WP No.101743/2024 dated 16.01.2025, whereby the termination dated 21.04.2023 of a contractual Attender (temporary engagement from 25.07.2012, about 11 years of service) had been set aside as stigmatic and passed without enquiry, with reinstatement and 50% backwages. Holding that even a contractual employee cannot be terminated by a stigmatic order without enquiry, and that the termination order (Annexure-D) recorded misconduct as its ground, the Bench declined to interfere with the Single Judge's order, but set aside the 50% backwages direction as the employee's counsel gave up that claim, and directed reinstatement within four weeks.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9911-DB WA No. 100269 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO.100269 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE DISTRICT AYUSH AROGYA RAKSHA SAMITHI, BAGALKOTE, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOTE-587101.

¶9

THE DISTRICT AYUSH OFFICE, BAGALKOTE, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT AYUSH OFFICER, BAGLKOTE-587101.

¶10

THE GOVERNMENT AYURVEDIC HOSPITAL HUNGUND, DISTRICT BAGALKOTE, REPRESENTED BY SENIOR MEDICAL OFFICER, HUNGUND, DISTRICT BAGALKOTE-587118.

¶11

…APPELLANTS

¶12

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

¶15

SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI D/O. DYAMANNA SARURU AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. ATTENDER AT DISTRICT AYUSH HOSPITAL, HUNGUND, R/O SECTION NO.42, PLOT NO.23, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOTE-587103.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. SADYOJAT R. BALIGATTIMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO. WP NO.101743/2024 DATED 16.01.2025 AND FURTHER DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶19

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9911-DB WA No. 100269 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)

¶26

The State is in appeal calling in question the correctness of the order of learned Single Judge passed in WP No.101743/2024. By virtue of the said order, the order of termination dated 21.04.2023 passed by the respondent in writ proceedings, was set-aside. The learned Single Judge while setting aside the order of termination dated 21.04.2023, directed the reinstatement of employee with 50% backwages. Further, liberty was reserved to the State, who is employer, to hold an enquiry as regards the allegations against the petitioner/employee in accordance with law. It was further ordered that all consequential benefits to be determined as a consequence of result of enquiry.

¶27

2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings in the writ proceedings for the sake of convenience.

¶28

3. The admitted facts are that, the petitioner was working as contractual employee under the respondent and was

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9911-DB WA No. 100269 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

appointed as an Attender in the District Govt. Hospital on temporary basis on 25.07.2012. Subsequently, it appears that the State has issued show-cause notice as to why disciplinary action ought not to be taken against the petitioner insofar as certain acts of the petitioner in connection with certain acts in line with her intention to contest the Legislative Assembly election. It is further part of the records and admitted that the reply was made out to the show-cause notice. The respondent/State by order dated 21.04.2023 had terminated the service of the petitioner, who was on temporary contractual engagement.

¶33

4. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in the writ proceedings. The learned Single Judge had noticed that the order of termination was without enquiry and after a detailed reasoning, noticing that the petitioner had rendered about 11 years of service prior to termination and holding that the termination without enquiry which was stigmatic and could not have been passed without enquiry, has allowed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has also referred to the

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9911-DB WA No. 100269 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nar Singh Pal Vs. Union of India¹ .

¶38

5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate is unable to controvert the legal position that even contractual employee cannot be terminated by stigmatic order without enquiry. A perusal of the order at Annexure-D records a finding that the termination was on the ground of misconduct. If that were to be so, we find no reason to interfere in the impugned order of learned Single Judge.

¶39

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of argument submits that the order of learned Single Judge may be affirmed while giving up the claim for backwages. Taking note of the same, the order of learned Single Judge is upheld, except the direction at clause II of the operative portion of the impugned order relating to award of 50% of backwages, which stands set-aside in light of stand of learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of argument.

¶40

7. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

¶41

1 (2000) 3 SCC 588

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9911-DB

¶44

WA No. 100269 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

ORDER

¶47

a) The Writ Appeal stands disposed off ;

¶48

b) The appellant/State to take steps for reinstatement of respondent/employee within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;

¶49

Pending applications, if any, are disposed off as not surviving for consideration.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶52

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE

¶53

JTR, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 30

The District Ayush Arogya v. Vijayalakshmi Dyamanna Saruru

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The District Ayush Arogya v. Vijayalakshmi Dyamanna Saruru

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gogga Channabasavaraj S/O Gogga Channabasayya Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Gogga Channabasavaraj S/O Gogga Channabasayya Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Smt Mahadevi Aliyas Bourawwa W/O Dhareppa Kumbar Vs Sri Dhareppa Siddhramappa Kumbar

Branch Manager Vs Smt.Nishaa W/O Nagesh Pai

Smt.Nishaa W/O.Nagesh Pai Vs Mr.Ibrahim S/O.Mohammadsab Binkadakatti

Smt. Vijaylakshmi D/O Dyamanna Sarur Vs K.M. Janaki