The Secretary To Government And ... vs Gangamma D/O Kanteppa W/O ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8651 Kant

                             1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   KALABURAGI BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

                        PRESENT

 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

                           AND

           THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. RACHAIAH

           WRIT APPEAL No.200061/2020 (S-RES)

Between:

1.   The Secretary to Government
     Department of Agriculture
     (Services and Co-ordination)
     Sheshadri Road
     Bengaluru-560 001

2.   The Commissioner
     Department of Agriculture
     Sheshadri Road
     Bengaluru-560 001

3.   The Director
     Department of Agriculture
     Sheshadri Road
     Bengaluru-560 001

4.   The Joint Director
     Department of Agriculture
     Bidar-585 401
                                           ...Appellants

(By Sri Viranagouda M. Biradar, AGA)
                                    2

And:

Gangamma D/o Kanteppa W/o Pundalik
Age: 30 Years Occ: Assistant Technology
Manager, O/o Raith Sampark Kendra
Janawada, Tq & Dist: Bidar-585 401
                                                        ...Respondent

(By Sri R. J. Bhusare, Advocate)

       This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the High
Court Act, 1961 praying to set aside the order passed by the
learned Single Judge on 08.01.2020 in W.P.No.205122/2018.

       This   appeal   is   coming      on   for   Orders,    this   day,
SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR J., made the following:

                              ORDER

Though the writ appeal is posted for hearing on

I.A.No.2/2020, with the consent of the learned

Government Advocate and the counsel for the respondent,

we have disposed of this writ appeal on merits.

2. The writ petitioner is working as Assistant

Technology Manager in the department of Agriculture.

She gave birth to a female baby on 25.09.2017. When she

claimed maternity leave for the period of her absence, her

request was rejected. Therefore, she approached this

Court by filing writ petition. The learned Single Judge

allowed the writ petition, directed her reinstatement with

25% back wages. For passing the order, the learned

Single Judge followed the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court. He also opined that treating the writ

petitioner differently from regular female employees would

violate Articles 14 and 42 of the Constitution of India.

3. Learned Government Advocate submits that

the writ petitioner has been granted maternity leave, but

the learned Single Judge should not have ordered for

payment of 25% back wages.

4. We do not think the ground urged by the

Government Advocate in the writ appeal is sustainable

because the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the Writ

Appeal No.200002/2020 has held that a female employee

placed in a similar situation was entitled to back wages.

We do not find any justification in the ground taken by the

appellant for denying the benefit of back wages to the

extent of 25%. There are no merits in the appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

In view of disposal of the main appeal, I.A.No.2/2020

filed for stay does not survive for consideration and the

same is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RSP