This intra court appeal has been filed against an

order dated 05.02.2021 passed by the learned Single

Judge, by which writ petition preferred by the

appellants has been dismissed.

2.

Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal

briefly stated are that the appellants were working as

Teaching and Non-teaching staff in the establishment

of respondent No.2 namely Dr. T.M.A. Pai Foundation

(hereinafter referred to as the 'Foundation' for short),

which runs various education institutions. During

the time, when the appellants were employed in the

education institution run by the Foundation, the

institution received grant-in-aid and the appellants

used to receive the salary. The Foundation by a

communication informed the Government that it does

4

not wish to receive the grant by the Government.

Thereupon, the State Government by an order dated

03.12.2008 withdrew the grant and notices of

termination were issued to the appellants.

3.

The appellants thereupon filed a writ

petition in which an interim order of stay was granted

on 23.07.2009, by which order withdrawing the grant

to the education institution, in which, the appellants

were employed was stayed. The writ petition was

disposed of by an order dated 21.06.2011, without

prejudice to the rights of the petitioners, if they are in

any way violated by the action of the respondents.

The appellants assailed the aforesaid order in W.A.

No.5326/2011 which was disposed of by an order

dated 30.01.2012, affirming the order passed by the

learned Single Judge.

5

4.

After disposal of the writ appeal, the

Foundation issued a notice dated 18.06.2012 to the

appellants, by which it was made clear that if the

appellants want to continue with the Foundation, they

would be bound by the terms and conditions

prescribed by the Foundation. The appellants

thereupon filed a writ petition and sought the similar

reliefs as claimed in the earlier writ petition. Learned

Single Judge inter alia held that the petitioners had

assailed the same order in a previous writ petition and

order passed by the learned Single Judge has also

been affirmed by the Division Bench. However, the

writ petition was disposed with a direction to consider

the case of the petitioners for the service they have

rendered upto 03.12.2008 for the purpose of granting

terminal benefits if not already considered. In the

factual background, this appeal has been filed.

6

5.

We have considered the submissions of the

learned counsel for the parties and have perused the

records. The learned Single Judge in para 15 of the

order has recorded the following facts:

"15. The

aforesaid

facts

are

distinguishable with the facts obtaining in

the case at hand without much ado as the

petitioners herein have already approached

this Court challenging the very same order

earlier and have suffered an order both at

the hands of the learned Single Judge and

the Hon'ble Division Bench."

6.

The aforesaid finding is not disputed by the

learned counsel for the appellants. Therefore, no

relief in the subsequent petition filed by the appellants

seeking the similar relief could have been granted.

The learned Single Judge has therefore, in the facts of

the case, has rightly disposed of the writ petition. The

order passed by the learned Single Judge does not

7

suffer from any infirmity warranting interference of

this Court in this appeal.

In the result, we do not find any merit in the

appeal. The same fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

Sd/-

JUDGE

SS