Karnataka High Court
Sri. Muralidhara H C vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 February, 2026
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:10154-DB
WP No. 3805 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION No. 3805 OF 2026 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MURALIDHARA H. C.,
S/O. SRI. CHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
STATISTICAL INSPECTOR,
O/O. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
KOLAR DIVISION,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563101.
R/AT. TAMAKA VILLAGE, KUDA LAYOUT,
OPP R.L. JALAPPA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND
Digitally signed HOSPITAL, 3RD STAGE,
by VINUTHA B
S KOLAR 563103.
Location: High ...PETITIONER
Court of
Karnataka (BY SRI KARTHIKEYAN B. S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
PLANNING, PROGRAMME MONITORING
AND STATISTICS DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:10154-DB
WP No. 3805 of 2026
HC-KAR
2. THE DIRECTOR OF ECONOMICS AND
STATISTICS, M. S. BUILDING,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU 560 001.
3. THE DISTRICT STATISTICAL OFFICER,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BHAVANA,
2ND FLOOR, ROOM No.202,
BEERASANDRA VILLAGE,
KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU 562 110.
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
KOLAR DIVISION,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KSAT, BENGALURU DATED
08.01.2026 IN A.No.50/2026 (ANNEXURE-A).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:10154-DB
WP No. 3805 of 2026
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2. The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the order dated 08.01.2026 in Application No.50/2026 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Bengaluru [for short 'Tribunal'], insofar as not granting an interim order of stay of impugned order of refixation of pay and consequent recovery.
3. Heard Sri B.S. Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal questioning the Memorandum bearing No.KAPaIm/Lo.E/Ko/Sibbandi-4/2025-26:2844, dated 31.12.2025 (Annexure-A8), whereunder the petitioner was intimated that his pay has been refixed and in pursuance of -4- NC: 2026:KHC:10154-DB WP No. 3805 of 2026 HC-KAR refixation, a sum of Rs.6,80,325/- is directed to be recovered in monthly installments of Rs.20,611/-. 4.1 Learned counsel would submit that no notice whatsoever was issued before taking the decision to refix the petitioner's pay. Further he would submit that no refixation could be effected and the petitioner would be entitled to the pay which he was drawing prior to the impugned Memorandum dated 31.12.2025. However, it is submitted that the Tribunal, without examining the contentions and without examining as to whether the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for granting an interim order, rejected the interim prayer of the petitioner. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case since no notice was issued to him before re-fixing or ordering recovery.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents, would oppose the prayer of the petitioner and would submit that at any rate, the petitioner would not be entitled for stay of re-fixation under the impugned Memorandum dated 31.12.2025.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:10154-DB WP No. 3805 of 2026 HC-KAR
6. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and on consideration of the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant of interim prayer only insofar as recovery is concerned.
7. The impugned Memorandum dated 31.12.2025 (Anneuxre-A8) would not indicate issuance of any notice prior to passing of the order re-fixing the pay and ordering recovery. Be that as it may. It is for the respondents to show that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity before passing the impugned memorandum. Till the correctness of order of refixation of pay is determined by the Tribunal, the petitioner would be entitled for interim protection insofar as recovery is concerned. However, at this stage, prima facie, only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case, which the Tribunal failed to notice. Accordingly, we pass the following;
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:10154-DB WP No. 3805 of 2026 HC-KAR Order
(i) Writ petition stands disposed of.
(ii) The impugned order dated 08.01.2026 in Application No.50/2026 passed by the Tribunal insofar as refusing to consider the interim prayer, is set aside.
(iii) The recovery in a sum of Rs.6,80,325/- indicated in the Memorandum bearing No. KAPaIm/Lo.E/Ko/ Sibbandi-4/2025-26:2844, dated 31.12.2025, (Annexure-A8) is stayed during the pendency of the above stated application before the Tribunal.
(iv) We are making it clear that, re-fixation as ordered under the impugned Memorandum is not stayed. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45