Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
B. VEERAPPA, M.G.S. KAMAL, JJ.
Smt. Medha D/o Janardhan Jaiwant – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Education – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 100649 of 2021
Decided On : 26-07-2021
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – Section 22 – Cancellation of Caste Certificate – Appointment based on caste terminated – Backwages – Petitioner filed present writ petition against Order passed in Application on file of Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, rejecting IA.Nos.3/2018 and 4/2018, both filed under Section 22 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying to direct respondents to restore Application which was allowed, and to direct respondents to pay back wages as prayed in prayer No.2 of Application respectively. – Tribunal, by Order dismissed I.A.Nos.3 and 4/2018, both filed under Sections 22 of Karnataka Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, mainly on ground that petitioner approached competent Court and also Tribunal and succeeded in her reinstatement into service, Tribunal has already granted substantial relief; it is clear from findings of Tribunal that petitioner is not entitled to any back wages and therefore, question of considering case of petitioner once again to grant further relief of back wages does not arise – Hence, present writ petition is filed.
Finding of the Court:
Once order of termination was found to oe illegal, employee is entitled to back wages, denial of same is contrary to law laid aown by this Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court, time and again. – Point raised for consideration in present writ petition has to be answered in negative holding that Tribunal is not justified in rejecting interlocutory applications filed by petitioner, for back wages without assigning any reasons – Material on record depicts that in spite of Order passed bv coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. Tribunal has dismissed interlocutory applications, without assigning any reasons, very strangely recording a finding that, 'it is dear from findings of Court that applicant is not entitled to back wages'. – Tribunal, while allowing Application in toto, by Order, has not recorded any such findings denying back wages and admittedly, respondents have not pointed out any such findings before this Court nor challenged said Order – In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of present case, authorities shall not be allowed to misuse their official powers to deprive liberty and statutory right of petitioner for back wages, since unilateral dismissal of petitioner from service is set- aside by Tribunal while allowing application in toto and naturally, petitioner is entitled to back wages in accordance with law – Impugned Order made in Application on file of Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal is hereby Quashed.
Result : Writ Petition Allowed
ORDER :
1. The petitioner filed the present writ petition against the Order dated 30.07.2020 passed in Application No. 5524/2014 on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, rejecting I.A. Nos. 3/2018 and 4/2018, both filed under Section 22 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying to direct the respondents to restore the Application No. 5524/2014 which was allowed on 19.07.2017 and to direct the respondents to pay the back wages as prayed in prayer No. 2 of Application No. 5524/2014, respectively.
(I) BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she was appointed as a lecturer in 3rd respondent-College on 27.01.2010 under scheduled caste category viz. Moger. The Tahsildar, Hubballi, by the Order dated 17.12.2013 cancelled the caste certificate of the petitioner, based on which, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide Order dated 26.06.2014 on the ground that the petitioner has obtained the post of lecturer on the basis of a fake caste certificate. The said order of dismissal was subject matter of Application No. 5524/2014 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short) which came to be allowed by the Order dated 19.07.2017, setting aside the Order of dismissal dated 26.06.2014 directing the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner to duty within a period of two months, without fail. It was also observed that the petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits inclusive of seniority, notional fixation of pay and monetary benefits, if any. The said order dated 19.07.2017 passed in Application No. 5524/2014 reached finality, since the State Government has not filed any appeal challenging the said order.
3. When things stood thus, unfortunately, on the wrong advise, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 3/2018 seeking to restore Application No. 5524/2014 and I.A. No. 4/2018 praying to direct the respondents to pay the back wages. The Tribunal, by the Order dated 28.11.2018, rejected the applications. Aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. No. 109902/2019, which came to be disposed off by the Order dated 10.10.2019 quashing the Order dated 28.11.2018 and remitting the matter to the Tribunal, to decide the applications afresh, by a speaking Order, within a period of two months, holding that the Tribunal has not assigned any reasons while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for back wages. The said Order dated 10.10.2019 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 109902/2019 has reached finality, since the State has not filed any Appeal.
4. After remand, the Tribunal, by the Order dated 30.07.2020 dismissed I.A. Nos. 3 and 4/2018, both filed under Sections 22 of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, mainly on the ground that the petitioner approached the competent Court and also the Tribunal and succeeded in her reinstatement into service; the Tribunal has already granted substantial relief; it is clear from findings of the Tribunal that petitioner is not entitled to any back wages and therefore, question of considering the case of the petitioner once again to grant further relief of back wages does not arise. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(II) ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
6. Sri. Shriharsh A. Neelopant, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that the impugned Order dated 30.07.2020 passed by the Tribunal in Application No. 5524/2014 dismissing the interlocutory application Nos. 3/2018 and 4/2018 filed praying to pay the back wages is erroneous, contrary to the material on record and liable to be quashed. He further contended that the specific prayer in Application No. 5524/2014 was to quash the Order of dismissal dated 26.06.2014 passed by the 2nd respondent dismissing the petitioner from service and to direct the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to reinstate the petitioner into service with all
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
