Back
2024 Supreme(Kar) 223
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Shivashankar Amarannavar, J.
H.M. S. Richard Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 104092 of 2022 (S-RES)
Decided On : 22-03-2024
Ravi Hegde, Advocate, Prashant S.Kadadevar, Advocate, Girija S.Hiremath, Advocate, Suresh S.Bhat, Advocate
A reinstated employee is entitled to full service benefits and pension based on the entirety of their service, including all increments, as if there were no breaks in service, especially when previous dismissals are deemed non-est due to procedural errors.
Headnote:
CERTIORARI - Writ Petition for Quashing Endorsements and Seeking Service Benefits - Karnataka Educational Institutions (Recruitment and terms and conditions of service of employees in private primary and Secondary educational institutions) Rules, 1999, Rule 22 - The court interpreted Rule 22, which states that salary arrears are payable by management only if dismissal is set aside. The court found that the petitioner was entitled to service benefits and pension based on his entire service, as the previous dismissal was deemed non-est due to procedural non-compliance. The endorsements issued by the respondents were quashed, and the court directed the consideration of the petitioner's representations regarding his service benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash several endorsements regarding his pay and service benefits after being reinstated following a previous court order. He claimed entitlement to full service benefits and pension based on his nearly 36 years of service, despite having compromised on back wages in a prior appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the endorsements regarding the petitioner's pay and service benefits did not consider his entire service and were therefore unsustainable. The court emphasized that reinstatement should reflect continuous service without breaks, including all increments and benefits.
Issues: Whether the endorsements regarding the petitioner's pay and service benefits were valid and whether the petitioner was entitled to full service benefits and pension based on his entire period of service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that reinstatement implies a return to the previous status, entitling the petitioner to all service benefits as if he had been continuously employed. The endorsements were quashed for failing to account for the petitioner's full service and increments.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, the contested endorsements were quashed, and the respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's representations regarding his pay and service benefits within specified timeframes.
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the following reliefs.
i) "Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned endorsement, bearing no.Aa Nu1/Nya. Aa. Aaa/Richard Kumar/116/2019-20/959 dtd. 2/9/2020 issued by the Respondent no.4 herein (Annexure-E) to the Writ petition, in the interest of justice and equity.
ii) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned endorsement bearing no.Aa Au1/Nya.Aa.Paa/Richard Kumar/116/ 2019-20/2220 dtd. 31/3/2022 issued by the Respondent no.4 herein (Annexure-L1) to the Writ petition, in the interest of justice and equity.
iii) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned endorsement bearing no.Ji9/Sha Shi Aa/Yes.Di.Gaa./Ne.Anu/ 26/ 2021-22/188 dtd. 19/4/2022 issued by the Respondent no.3 herein (Annexure-M) to the Writ petition, in the interest of justice and equity.
iv) Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directing the Respondent no.2 and 3 to consider the representation dtd. 16/9/2021 and representation dtd. 22/2/2022 respectively (Annexure-J and K), in the interests of justice and equity.
v) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as deemed fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of this case in the ends of justice."
2. The petitioner earlier had filed W.P.No.64565/2010 challenging the order dtd. 31/3/2010 passed by the District Judge and Educational Appeal Tribunal, Uttar Kannada, Karwar in EAT No.2/2002. The said writ petition came to be allowed by order dtd. 27/9/2019 and set aside the impugned order and also held that petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with 50% back wages along with other consequential service benefits. Copy of said order is at Annexure-'A'.
3. The respondent Nos.6 and 7 filed Writ Appeal No.100541/2019(S-DIS) challenging the order passed in writ petition No.64565/2010 dtd. 27/9/2019. Thereafter, the petitioner and respondent Nos.6 and 7 have got compromised and filed joint memo. The said joint memo vide Annexure-'B' came to be accepted by the Division Bench of this court vide Annexure-'D' and writ appeal came to be disposed of in terms of the said joint memo. The petitioner came to be reinstated by respondent Nos.6 and 7 on 3/3/2020. Thereafter, the petitioner has been paid his salary till his superannuation on 31/1/2021.
4. The respondent basing on the orders passed in the writ petition and writ appeal, passed order dtd. 2/9/2020 vide Annexure-'E' where under his pay was fixed. The petitioner found the pay fixed by the respondents is not proper, made a representation dtd. 16/9/2021 vide Annexure-J and representation dtd. 22/2/2022 vide Annexure-'K'. The respondents refused to give consequential benefits to the petitioner and issued endorsement dtd. 13/4/2022 vide Annexure-'L' and endorsement dtd. 31/3/2022 vide Annexure-'L1'. Thereafter, respondent No.3 issued endorsement justifying the order of respondent No.4 issued endorsement dtd. 19/4/2022 vide Annexure-'M'. The respondent No.2 sent communication to the respondent No.1 stating that steps were already taken as per endorsement dtd. 19/4/2022 and said communication dtd. 7/7/2022 vide Annexure-'N'. The petitioner being aggrieved by the illegal and arbitrary acts of respondent Nos.1 to 5 has filed this writ petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that as per order passed by this Court in WP No.64565/2010, the petitioner came to be reinstated in service with all consequential service benefits. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for his service benefits and fixation of pension taking into consideration his entire service of nearly 36 years. He submits that petitioner joined the service on 15/12/1984 and retired on 31/1/2021.
6. The petitioner gave up his claim of 50% of back wages and compromised the matter with respondent Nos.6 and 7 who had preferred writ appeal No.100541/2019 by entering into compromise with them. The said compromise
