IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 106608 OF 2025 (S-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. HANUMANTH S/O. NAGAPPA GOUDAR, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED DRIVER, R/O: KUMBARGALLI – 581 329, TAL: HALIYAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAGHUVEER R. SATTIGERI & SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATES)

AND:

1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, NWKRTC CENTRL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI 580 030.

2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC UTTAR KANNADA DIVISION, SIRSI – 581 401.

3. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC DHARWAD DIVISION, VISHAL NINGAPPA DHARWAD – 580 001.

PATTIHAL …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by (BY SRI. N.S.KINI, ADVOCATE)

VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 23.06.2025 SUBMITTED TO THE RESPONDENTS BY THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURES A, A1 AND A2 RESPECTIVELY AND TO, A) RESTORE THE PAY OF THE PETITIONER TO THE ORIGINAL POSITION AS IT STOOD PRIOR TO THE PUNISHMENT ORDER DATED 24.01.2003. B) PAY ALL ARREARS OF PAY AND ALLOWANCES, INCLUDING INCREMENTAL BENEFITS AND TIME-BOUND FIXATIONS, FROM 24.01.2003 ONWARD, AS PER THE CALCULATION TABLE PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE B. C) REFUND THE AMOUNT OF RS. 6,813/- THAT WAS WRONGLY RECOVERED FROM THE PETITIONER AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:

I. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to consider the Representations dated 23.06.2025 submitted to the Respondents by the Petitioner as per Annexures A, A1 and A2 respectively and to, a) restore the pay of the petitioner to the original position as it stood prior to the punishment order dated 24.01.2003.

b) pay all arrears of pay and allowances, including incremental benefits and time-bound fixations, from 24.01.2003 onward, as per the calculation table produced as per Annexure B.

c) Refund the amount of Rs. 6,813/- that was wrongly recovered from the Petitioner.

II. Issue such other appropriate writ or order or direction as deemed fit under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

2. Heard the learned counsels Sri.Raghuveer R Sattigeri and Sri.Chetan Munnoli appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel Sri.N.S.Kini for the respondents.

3. The petitioner was appointed as a driver on probation on 05.06.1985 and the probation was extended upto 18.01.1988. The petitioner was imposed a punishment of reduction in basic pay to minimum scale and recovery of an amount of ₹6,813/- in 10 instalments was imposed. This was called in question by the petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal I.D.No.255/2014 and the Tribunal rejects the reference by confirming the order of punishment. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner prefers W.P.No.112664 of 2019, which comes to be allowed. After the writ petition gets allowed, the petitioner submits a representation for restoration of pay of the year 2003 and grant all consequential benefits. The representation has not merited consideration. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that once this Court had reversed the order of penalty and directed all consequential benefits to be granted, it was axiomatic that the petitioner would get the restoration of pay. The learned counsel submits that it is axiomatic restoration of pay and submits that the petition be allowed.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri.N.S.Kini appearing for the Corporation submits, the Corporation has preferred an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge upon which reliance is placed by the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner is in