IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO. 1509 OF 2025 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. DR. U.R.KANTHA RAJU, S/O RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WORKING AS COMMUNITY ORGANISER, MYSURU CITY CORPORATION, MYSURU.

RESIDING AT NO.1W/121, BHOGADI ROAD, OPP. TO RIE QUARTERS GATE, MANASA GANGOTHRI POST, MYSURU-570006 …APPELLANT Digitally (BY SRI. HARSHA KUMAR GOWDA H.R., ADVOCATE)

signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B AND:

K Location:

HIGH 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, COURT OF REP BY ITS KARNATAKA ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001 2. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, 9TH FLOOR, VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWERS, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001

3. THE COMMISSIONER, MYSURU CITY CORPORATION, MYSURU-570001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 & R2;

SRI. GAURAV G.K, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04/08/2025 PASSED IN WP NO.16764/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND ALLOW THE WP NO.16764/2025 FILED BY THE APPELLANT, ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

The present writ appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 04.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16764/2025 whereby the appellant's claim for backwages for the period 22.11.2016 to 25.06.2024 has been denied on the ground that the he was dismissed from the service upon conviction in Crime No.271/1998 under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. The Sessions Court vide judgment and order dated 22.11.2016 convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences. This Court vide judgment and order dated 30.01.2024 acquitted the appellant and after acquittal he has been reinstated into service vide order dated

25.06.2024.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant does not press the relief for the back wages for the said period, however, he should be granted continuity of service and the said period should be treated as on service for the other purposes and not for the purpose of the back wages.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3-

Corporation does not dispute the facts. However, he has submitted that the Corporation would consider the claim of the appellant for continuity of service and for promotion from the date on which his juniors got promoted in the meantime.

4. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

5. The proposition of law regarding reinstatement and the claim for back wages upon conviction, acquittal and subsequent reinstatement in appeal is no longer res integra. An employee dismissed from service upon conviction and subsequently reinstated upon acquittal on appeal would not be entitled to backwages for the period between dismissal and reinstatement. However, the said period would be counted towards his total service.

6. The aforesaid proposition of law was laid down in the case of Union of India and Others v. Jaipal Singh reported in (2004) 1 SCC 121. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said judgment which are relevant are extracted here below:

"4. On a careful consideration of the matter and the materials on record, including the judgment and orders brought to our notice, we are of the view that it is well accepted that an order rejecting a special leave petition at the threshold without detailed reasons therefor does not constitute any declaration of law by this Court or constitute a binding precedent. Per contra, the decision relied upon by the appellant is one on merits and for reasons specifically recorded therefor it operates as a binding precedent as well. On going through the same, we are in respectful agreement with