The Head Master vs Sri N S Kantharaju
2023 Latest Caselaw 1426 Kant

                                         -1-
                                                        WA No.7 of 2021




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                      DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023
                                      PRESENT
                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                         AND
                      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A PATIL
                           WRIT APPEAL NO.7 OF 2021 (S-RES)

               BETWEEN:

               1.   THE HEAD MASTER
                    SRI RAGHAVENDRA ASHRAM HIGH SCHOOL
Digitally           DODDABOMMASANDRA, BANGALORE 97
signed by           REPRESENTD SRI B.S. SHASHIDHAR
RUPA V              S/O CHANDRASHEKAR BADIKAR
Location:           AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
High Court
of Karnataka                                               ...APPELLANT
               (BY MS/MRS. SWATHI D. NAIK, ADV., FOR
                      MR. THYAGARAJA .S, ADV.,)

               AND:

               1.   SRI. N.S. KANTHARAJU
                    S/O N.K. SHIVALINGAIAH
                    AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
                    SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT
                    BHAGINI NIVEDITHA HIGH SCHOOL
                    DINNUR MAIN ROAD
                    R T NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 032.

               2.   THE DEPUTY DIRECRTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
                    DEPARTMETN OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
                    K G ROAD, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
                    BANGALORE 560002.

               3.   THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
                    DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
                           -2-
                                          WA No.7 of 2021




     NORTH RANGE-4, YELAHANKA
     BANGALORE 560064.

4.   THE HEAD MASTER
     SRI BHAGINI NIVEDITHA HIGH SCHOOL
     DINNUR MAIN ROAD, R T NAGAR
     BANGALORE 560 032.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR S.C. ADV., FOR R1
    SRI. B. RAJENDRA PRASAD, HCGP FOR R2 & R3
         R4 SERVED)

      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
02.12.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, IN W.P.
NO.8345/2015 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS              THE   WRIT
PETITION OF THE PETITIONER WITH COSTS AND GRAND SUCH
OTHER ORDER, RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT IN THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS WRIT APPEAL.


      THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                      JUDGMENT

This intra Court appeal has been filed against an

order dated 02.12.2020 passed by the learned Single

Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the

respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

employee') has been disposed of.

WA No.7 of 2021

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly

stated are that respondent No.1 was employed in the

Institution namely Sri Bhagini Nivedita High School. He

was transferred to Sri Raghavendra Ashrama High

School. The employee reported for duty on 02.02.2009

to the Institution to which he was transferred. However,

the employee was not paid salary for a period from

02.02.2009 to 15.02.2010 on the ground that he was

unauthorisedly absent. The employee thereupon

approached the appellants as well as the respondents

with regard to his grievance. However, no action was

taken for redressal of his grievance. Thereupon, he filed

the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, by an order

dated 02.12.2020, inter alia has held that the employee

is entitled to salary for a period from 02.02.2009 to

15.02.2010. The appellant was directed to calculate

and disburse the salary to the employee within a period

of two months failing which the appellant was directed

WA No.7 of 2021

to pay interest at the rate of 8% p.a. In the aforesaid

factual background, this appeal has been filed.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the

appellant at length and have perused the record.

4. The learned Single Judge has taken into account

the defense set up by the appellant that the employee

remained unauthorisedly absent for a period from

02.02.2009 to 15.02.2010. The learned Single Judge

has therefore held that in case the employee was absent

for such a long period of time, the appellant ought to

have initiated disciplinary action against the employee.

It has further been held that in the absence of any

disciplinary proceeding initiated against the appellant,

an inference cannot be drawn that he remained

unauthorisedly absent. It has further been held that

insofar as the employee continues to be in service, he is

WA No.7 of 2021

entitled to salary. Therefore, the appellant has been

held entitled for payment of salary.

For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find

any ground to differ with the view taken by the learned

Single Judge.

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

dismissed.

Consequently, the pending interlocutory

application, if any, is also dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RV