Back
2002 Supreme(Kar) 800
Karnataka High Court
K.T.Shivaiah - Appellant
Versus
G.Puttaswamy Gowda - Respondent
Decided On : 12-20-02
R.F.A. : 78 of 2001
K.T.Shivaiah, Y.Rajendra Prasad
Headnote:Compensation in lieu of reinstatement
Reinstatement - Disputes regarding termination and service benefits -Appellant aged 76 years -remedy, if at all, is only for damages -Appellant seeking reinstatement -Illegal termination of services by the Association -reinstatement would serve no useful purpose considering the Appellant s age - hence, appellant should be compensated.
[R. Gururajan, J.] - In the case on hand, the Court sees that the appellant has joined the services in his capacity as a Honorary Secretary. He was paid a sum of Rs.1,500/- p.m. There seems to be some difference of opinion between the parties. The appellant is also now aged 76 years. No useful purpose would be served by ordering reinstatement in the given set of circumstances particularly taking into consideration the age of the appellant and the material on record. In so far as the consequential benefits are concerned, it is nothing but a payment payable on account of the order being null and void. The order is dated 25-9-1992. Ten years are over. Ten years salary works out to 1,500 X 12 X 10 = Rs.1,80,000/-. But in the case on hand, the respondent is an association meant for the welfare of the TB patients. The association has been formed with the laudable object of controlling the TB and also for the better benefits to the TB patients. It is maintained by Government Officials. It may to a certain extent par take the status of State under Article 12. In these circumstances without going in to the arithmetic calculations, a lump-sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- would meet the ends of justice, particularly in the light of the age of the appellant and the status of the association being a public body. This amount is in full and final settlement of the compensation payable to the plaintiff appellant on account of illegal termination by the association.
Cases Referred: JT 1995(3) SC 119; AIR 2001 SC 1173; AIR 1995 Supp(2) SCC 495.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by one Dr. Shivaiah, party in person, challenging the judgment and decree dated 7. 10. 2002 in so far as rejection of declaration with regard to deemed continuance and with regard to denial of consequential benefits in terms of the judgment and decree.
( 2 ) FACTS in brief as under; dr. Shivaiah, was appointed as Honorary Secretary on 24. 1. 1992 by the Karnataka State T. B. Association (for short the association) in terms of a resolution. His appointment was ratified in the meeting held on 30. 4. 1992. He was carrying on his duties as per stipulations contained in the Rules and Regulations. An order was passed ordering termination of the services of the appellant by the association. Appellant challenged the same by way of seeking a declaration and an injunction. Respondents entered appearance. They contested the suit. They have stated that no relief can be granted to the plaintiff. Plaintiffs remedy if at all is only for damages. They wanted the suit to be dismissed. The learned Judge after evidence has passed the following order;the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed with costs. The impugned order bearing No. MHPW/h/n/8258 dated 25. 9. 1992 ratified by the second defendant association on 10. 12. 1992 is hereby declared as null and void. The prayer of the plaintiff for declaration that he should be deemed to have continued in service as Honorary Secretary of the Association and is entitled to all consequential benefits till he hands over the charge of the association to the person who is duly appointed as per rule under Rule 19 (a) of the defendant-2 association Rules, thereby enabling him to recover all the records, etc. , forcibly seized by the agents of the first defendant from him and the same be handed over to his successor to avoid future contingency and embarrassment, is not maintainable in law and hence dismissed. The parties to bear their own costs. Advocates fee is fixed at Rs. 500/ -. This order is challenged in this appeal.
( 3 ) APPELLANT appears in person. He is, as on today, 76 years old. He took me through the pleadings to contend that the learned Judge has denied the declaration of reinstatement. His further case is that the learned Judge is not correct in denying consequential benefits. He has also narrated to me the treatment meted out to him after an order of this Court in MFA. Per contra, the defendants counsel took me through the orders to contend that the suit is rightly dismissed. The remedy if at all is only for damages. He also relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of INTEGRATED RURAL development AGENCY vs RAM PYARE PANDEY.
( 4 ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel and the party in person, I have perused the judgment and decree. The contention before the learned Judge was with regard to an order dated 25. 9. 1992 passed by the association against the plaintiff/appellant. Plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1 and defendant got himself examined as DW-1. Four documents were marked on behalf of the plaintiff and eight documents were got marked on behalf of the defendants. Learned judge in the light of the material available on record has framed as many as ten issues.
( 5 ) ISSUE No. 1 deals with the ratification of the appointment. Learned Judge notices the evidence on record. He refers to Exp-1 and notification issued by the then Minister for Health and Family welfare. He also refers to Ex. P-2 and also the payments made to the plaintiff/appellant. After noticing these facts he has answered the issue in favour of the plaintiff appellant.
( 6 ) IN so far as issue No. 2 is concerned, it is with regard to whether the plaintiff/appellant was working as a secretary on the date of the suit. Here again the learned Judge has noticed the evidence in addition to a statuesquo order passed by the Court. After noticing the same and in the light of the admitted facts, the learned Judge held that the plaintiff/appellant was not working as a honorary Secret
