Karnataka High Court
The Director vs Parvati Hubballi W/O on 11 January, 2022
Bench: S G Pandit, Anant Ramanath Hegde
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WA NO.100303 OF 2021 (S-DIS)
BETWEEN:
1. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
DHANWANTARI ROAD, ANANDRAO CIRCLE,
BENGALURU-560009.
2. THE DISTRICT AYUSH OFFICER
DISTRICT GOVERNMENT AYURVEDIC HOSPITAL,
GADAG-BETAGERI, GADAG,
DISTRICT-GADAG-583201.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
GADAG DISTRICT,
GADAG-583201.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE)
AND
PARVATI HUBBALLI
W/O MANJUNATH HADDANNAVAR
AGE:35 YEARS, OCC:ATTENDER,
R/O DHOOLIKATTI, NEAR MARUTI TEMPLE,
KANYAL AGASI, BETAGERI, TQ & DIST:GADAG.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.SUNIL S DESAI, ADVOCATE)
2
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE ON IA
NO.1/2021 DATED 25.8.2021 AND IA NO.II/2021 DATED
26.10.2021 ALLOWING THE APPLICATIONS ON IA NO.1/2021
FILED BY THE APPELLANTS AND REJECTING THE IA NO.2/2021
IN WRIT PETITION NO.101867/2021 (S-RES) IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, S.G. PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
IA No.3/2021 is filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 80 days in
preferring the writ appeal. Learned counsel for the
caveator respondent submits that he has no objection to
condone the delay. Moreover, the appellants have made
out a case for condoning the delay. Hence, IA No.3/2021
is allowed. Delay of 80 days in preferring the appeal is
condoned.
2. The appellant-State is before this Court in this
intra-court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High
Court Act, 1961 assailing the correctness and legality of
the interim order dated 25.8.2021, by which the learned
Single Judge refused to vacate the interim order and also
the order dated 26.10.2021 on IA No.2/2021, whereby the
learned Single Judge directed the appellants/State to pay
salary to the respondent/petitioner.
3. Heard Sri. G.K.Hiregoudar, learned
Government Advocate for the appellants/State and Sri.
Sunil Desai, learned counsel for the respondent and
perused the writ appeal papers.
4. Respondent/petitioner was before the writ
court challenging the order dated 29.3.2021 at Annexure-L
by which the petitioner was dismissed from the service.
Learned Single Judge by order dated 23.4.2021 had
granted interim order staying the operation of order of
dismissal dated 29.3.2021. On an application (IA
No.1/2021) filed by the appellants/State for vacating stay,
learned Single Judge by a reasoned order refused to
vacate the interim order by observing that the
respondent/petitioner was terminated from service without
holding an enquiry and order of termination would amount
to stigma. The matter is pending before the learned Single
Judge and at this stage, this Court would not venture to
make any observation on merit. Further, by order dated
26.10.2021, on an application (IA No.2/2021) filed by the
petitioner/respondent, learned Single Judge directed the
appellants/State to pay salary to the petitioner and permit
her to discharge as 'Kshara Sutra Attender'. Since the
order of dismissal is stayed, the effect of stay would result
in continuation of the petitioner in service. Therefore, the
petitioner would be entitled for salary.
5. It is open for the appellants/State to request
the learned Single Judge for early disposal of the aforesaid
writ petition. We do not find any infirmity in the order
passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, writ
appeal stands disposed of.
6. Pending applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration, and accordingly, they are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
JTR
