Sri M Shivalingaiah Vs the Union of India

SRI M SHIVALINGAIAH S/O LINGAIAH, AGED 61 YEARS, NUMBER NO. 201, 2/3, 1^ST D MAIN ROAD, HEBBALA BINNY MILL RAD, NEAR VANI SCHOOL, GANGANAGAR EXTENSION, BANGALORE NORTH, KARNATAKA-560032.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SMT. JYOTHI KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HIRAN KRISHNASWAMY., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BRAODCASTING, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶16

(DELETED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 08.06.2026)

¶17

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PRASAR BHARATI CORPORATION, MANDI HOUSE, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:27056 WP No. 23591 of 2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PENSION AND PENSIONER'S WELFARE, JANPATH BHAWAN, B WING 8TH FLOOR, JANPATH, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶21

(DELETED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 08.06.2026)

¶22

THE DY. DIRECTOR GENERAL (E)/HOO ALL INDIA RADIO, NO.2, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560001.

¶23

THE ALL INDIA RADIO AND TELEVISION AND NATIONAL FILM DEVELOPMENT, CORPORATION EMPLOYEES, CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, F-3, ANUGRAHA APARTMENT NO. 56, SINGANNA CHETTY STREET, CHINTADRIPET,CHENNAI-600 002. REGISTERED UNDER CORPORATION SOCIETY ACT.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. NAGENDRA. A., CGC FOR R1 TO R4 R5 SERVED)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE DECISION OF THE R4 TO WITHHOLD THE PETITIONERS EARNED LEAVE OF RS.1,16,200/- VIDE LETTER DTD 06.03.2023 (ENCLOSED HEREWITH AS ANNX-A) AND THE ACCOMPANYING COMMUNICATION DTD 02.02.2023 ISSUED BY THE R5 TO R4 (ENCLOSED HEREWITH AS ANNX-B). ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE R4 TO CONSIDER THE WRITTEN REPRESENTATION DTD 05.10.2023 ENCLOSED AS ANNX-C AND TO CONSEQUENTLY RELEASE THE WITHHELD EARNED LEAVE AMOUNT OF RS.1,16,200/-(RS.ONE LAKHS SIXTEEN THOUSAND AND TWO HUNDRED ONLY), ALONG WITH

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:27056 WP No. 23591 of 2023

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 14 PERCENT PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF THE PETITIONERS RETIREMENT(31.05.2022).

¶30

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

The petitioner filed this petition seeking the following

¶34

prayer:

¶35

i) Set aside the decision of the Respondent No.4 to withhold the Petitioner's earned leave of Rs.1,16,200/vide letter dated 06.03.2023 (enclosed herewith as Annexure A) and the accompanying communication dated 02.02.2023 Issued by the Respondent No.5 to Respondent No.4 (enclosed herewith as Annexure B).

¶36

ii)Issue a writ of Mandamus to the Respondent No. 4 to consider the written representation dated 5-10-2023 enclosed as Annexure C and to consequently release the withheld earned leave amount of Rs.1,16,200/- (Rs. One Lakh Sixteen Thousand and Two Hundred Only.), along with interest at the rate of 14% pa from the date of the Petitioner's retirement. (31.05.2022).

¶37

ili) Grant costs of the proceedings.

¶38

iv) Grant such other relief or reliefs as may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court.

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:27056 WP No. 23591 of 2023

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows:

¶43

The petitioner worked with All India Radio, Bengaluru, under the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting on 21.05.1991. On 09.09.2006, the petitioner had borrowed a sum of ₹3,00,000/- from respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 issued a demand letter to the petitioner on 25.07.2018. Respondent No.3 initiated arbitration proceedings against the petitioner in Chennai for the recovery of the loan amount. The Arbitrator has passed award dismissing the claims of respondent No.3 on the ground that the claim for recovery of the alleged debt is barred by limitation vide award dated 27.11.2019.

¶44

The respondent No.2 issued a No Due Certificate to the petitioner on 10.03.2022. The petitioner, aggrieved by the action of withholding the amount due to him by respondent No.2, addressed a letter of communication to the Ministry of Co-operation, New Delhi, alleging

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:27056 WP No. 23591 of 2023

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

that respondent No.2, society is not a registered legal entity. The petitioner retired from service and was given superannuation benefits. The petitioner is entitled for ₹1,16,200/- of his earned leave. The respondent No.2 has withheld the said amount. Hence, this writ petition.

¶48

Respondents No.1 to 4 filed a statement of objections contending that the petitioner had borrowed a loan of ₹3,00,000/- from respondent No.3 and the petitioner did not repay the loan amount. The petitioner is due of ₹1,16,200/-. Hence respondent No.2 has withdrawn the said amount in terms of the agreement executed between the petitioner and respondents No.2 as per Annexure R4. It is also contended that the petitioner has executed an undertaking agreeing to repay the said loan amount. The action of respondent No.2 in withholding the earned leave is just and proper. Hence, on these grounds prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶49

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:27056 WP No. 23591 of 2023

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

The petitioner filed a rejoinder to the statement of objections filed by respondents No.1 to 4 contending that the respondents have forcibly taken the undertaking from the petitioner. It is contended that the claim of respondent No. 3 was dismissed by the arbitrator. Hence, question of recovering the said amount does not arise. Hence, prays to allow the writ petition.

¶52

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Central Government standing counsel for the respondents.

¶53

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had obtained a loan from the respondent No.3 bank and paid substantial portion of the loan amount. She submits that respondent No.3 initiated arbitration proceeding before the arbitrator. The arbitrator after full-fledged trial dismissed the claim petition filed by respondent No.3 on the ground that the claim made by the petitioner is barred by

¶54

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:27056 WP No. 23591 of 2023

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

limitation. She submits that when the claim petition was dismissed by the arbitrator and the award passed by the arbitrator had attained a finality, Respondent No.3 has no right to claim the said amount of ₹1,16,200/-. She submits that respondent No.2 has no right to withhold the earned leave of ₹ 1,16,200/-. The action of the respondents in withholding the earned leave is arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to allow the writ petition.

¶57

Per contra , learned Central Government Standing counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner had borrowed a sum of ₹3,00,000/- from the respondent No.3 and an agreement came to be executed between the petitioner, respondents No.2 and 3 and as per the agreement, respondents No. 2 is required to withhold the benefits. Pursuant to the said agreement, respondent No.2 has withheld the earned leave. He also submitted that the petitioner has given an undertaking as per Annexure R1, wherein he has

¶58

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:27056 WP No. 23591 of 2023

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

undertaken to repay ₹1,16,200/-. He submitted that the petitioner cannot take a u-turn and say that the petitioner is not liable to pay the amount of ₹1,16,200/-. Hence, respondent No.2 has rightly withheld the earned leave in terms of Annexure R3 that is an agreement. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶61

Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel to the parties.

¶62

It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner had obtained a loan of ₹3,00,000/- from the respondent No.3, as the petitioner could not repay the loan amount, the respondent No.3 initiated the arbitration proceedings before the arbitrator Tribunal. The Arbitral Tribunal passed an award vide Annexure E, wherein the claim of respondent No.3 was dismissed on the ground that the claim made by respondent No.3 is barred by limitation and the said award came to be passed on 27.11.2019. When respondent No.3 initiated

¶63

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:27056 WP No. 23591 of 2023

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

recovery proceedings and came to be dismissed vide award dated 27.11.2019. Hence, there is no question of recovering the said amount by respondent No.3. Admittedly, the award passed by the arbitral tribunal has attended a finality. Respondent No.3 has not challenged the arbitral award. Respondent No.3 has no right to recover the said amount. In view of the Award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal vide Annexure-E, respondent No.2 has no right to withhold the earned leave. No same person would execute an undertaking after having succeeded in the Arbitration proceedings. Hence, the order of executing alleged undertaking by the petitioner is not acceptable. The same was got executed by putting pressure on the petitioner. The claim of the respondent No.3 is barred by limitation. Hence, question of recovering the same does not arise. The action of respondent No.2 in withholding the earned leave of the petitioner is arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, the impugned order passed by

¶66

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:27056 WP No. 23591 of 2023

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A and also

¶69

communication dated 02.02.2023 vide Annexure B

¶70

both are liable to be quashed.

¶71

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order:

¶72

ORDER

¶73

i. The writ petition is allowed .

¶74

ii. Annexures A and B are hereby quashed.

¶75

iii. The respondent No.2 is directed to consider the representation dated 05.10.2023 and consequently release the withheld earned leave amount of ₹1,16,200/- within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶76

iv. Pending IA/s, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

¶77

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶78

SKS

Sri M Shivalingaiah v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Shivalingaiah v. the Union of India

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

Smt.Renukamma Vs Smt.Hanumakka

Dodda Basaiah Vs Thippamma

Hazarat Syed Habeebulla Sha Quadri Education Trust (R) Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Chandrashekar v Vs Sri Udayakumar M S

Sumanth Kanti Vs at and S India Private Limited

Sri. Nagappa G .M. (Nagaraja) Vs State of Karnataka