The Divisional Controller v. Mr. M. Chandrashekar

Karnataka HC29 Apr 2026RP/274/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition; Order 47 Rule 1 CPC; Section 114 CPC; recall of settlement recorded in joint memo; joint memo allowing writ petition set aside; KSRTC Tumkur Division; termination of service; reinstatement subject to result of writ petition; removal from service after reinstatement; fact not within knowledge of employer; writ petition restored to file; W.P. No.12909/2015 (L-KSRTC); workman M. Chandrashekar.

What did the court decide?

Review Petition allowed; the order dated 29.01.2025 passed in W.P.No.12909 of 2015 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to file. ¶¶37

The Divisional Controller Vs Mr. M. Chandrashekar — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Review Petition allowed; the order dated 29.01.2025 passed in W.P.No.12909 of 2015 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to file.

¶¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the settlement recorded in terms of the joint memo in W.P. No.12909/2015 (whereby the writ petition was allowed, the termination of service was set aside and the respondent-workman was reinstated) ought to be recalled, in light of the fact that the respondent-workman had been removed from service after his reinstatement — a fact not within the knowledge of the petitioner-Corporation when the joint memo was filed.

¶¶35

Court's answer

Since the respondent-workman had been removed from service after his reinstatement (which was made subject to the result of the writ petition) — a fact not within the knowledge of the petitioner-Corporation when the joint memo was filed — the settlement recorded in terms of the joint memo has to be recalled.

¶¶35

Ratio / Principle

The Review Petition is allowed; the order dated 29.01.2025 passed in W.P.No.12909 of 2015 is recalled and the petition is restored to file.

¶¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review Petition No. 274 of 2025 under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 CPC — The Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Tumkur Division v. M. Chandrashekar — The writ petition W.P. No.12909/2015 (L-KSRTC) had been allowed on 29.01.2025 in terms of a joint memo filed by the employer-Corporation and the respondent-workman, whereby the order of termination of service was set aside and the workman was ordered reinstated. After the joint memo was filed it emerged that the workman had been removed from service once again after his reinstatement, such reinstatement having been made subject to the result of the writ petition; this fact was not within the knowledge of the Corporation and was not brought to the notice of the Court. Holding that the settlement recorded in terms of the joint memo has to be recalled, the Court allowed the review petition, recalled the order dated 29.01.2025 and restored the writ petition to file.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:24302 RP No. 274 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶8

REVIEW PETITION NO. 274 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TUMKUR DIVISION, TUMKUR HEREIN REPRESENTED BY SHANTHINAGARA THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICES, KH ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by BELUR RANGADHAMA NANDINI

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

AND:

¶16

MR. M. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O MEDIHALA VILLAGE VEMAGAL HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 103.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. K. SHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS RP IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SEC.114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED

¶20

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:24302 RP No. 274 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

29.01.2025 PASSED IN WP NO.12909/2015 (L-KSRTC) (VIDE ANNEXURE - B), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

¶25

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

This review petition is filed to review the order dated 29.01.2025, passed in Writ Petition No.12909/2015 (L-KSRTC) which is allowed in terms of the joint memo filed by the petitioner-Employer and the respondent-Workman.

¶29

2. In terms of the joint memo, the order of termination of service of the respondent was set aside and the respondentWorkman was ordered to be reinstated.

¶30

3. Learned counsel for the Review Petitioner-Corporation would submit that, while filing the joint memo, the fact that the respondent was removed from service after his reinstatement which was made subject to the result of the writ petition was not within the knowledge of the petitioner-Corporation and the same was not brought to the notice of the Court.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:24302 RP No. 274 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

4. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the respondent was once again removed from the service after he was reinstated on filing W.P.No.12909 of 2015, in which, the joint memo is accepted.

¶35

5. This being the position, the Court is of the view that the settlement which is recorded in terms of the joint memo has to be recalled.

¶36

6. Accordingly, the Review Petition is allowed .

¶37

The order dated 29.01.2025 passed in W.P.No.12909 of 2015 is recalled. Petition is restored to file.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶40

MKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

The Divisional Controller v. Mr. M. Chandrashekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Controller v. Mr. M. Chandrashekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganesha Engineers Fabricators Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-Ii

Mr Amit Singhal Vs Lumen India Private Ltd.

Krisan Lal Vs the Central Silk Board

Channakeshav B S Vs State of Karnataka

Santhosh Mahto Vs State of Karnataka

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs P.Mohan Kumar