Sree Ranganathaswamy Bhovi Vidya ... vs Smt M B Sarvamangalamma
2023 Latest Caselaw 2099 Kant

                                                    -1-
                                                             WA No. 1107 of 2022




                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                              DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2023

                                                PRESENT

                        THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE

                                                   AND

                               THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

                                WRIT APPEAL NO. 1107 OF 2022 (S-RES)

                   BETWEEN:
                   1.     SREE RANGANATHASWAMY BHOVI VIDYA SAMSTHE (REGD)
                          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
                          SRI Y. RAMESH S/O LATE YELLAPPA
                          AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
                          O/AT NERLIGE VILLAGE
                          DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 002

                                                                       ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI. HARISH KUMAR M S, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:
                   1.     SMT. M B SARVAMANGALAMMA
Digitally signed          AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
by AMBIKA H B             D/O M. BASAPPA
Location: HIGH            R/AT T.B. CIRCLE, SASALU VILLAGE
COURT OF                  DAVANAGERE TALUK- 577 002
KARNATAKA
                   2.     THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
                          NRUPATUNGA ROAD
                          BANGALORE- 560 001

                   3.     THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTURCTIONS
                          HADADI ROAD, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
                          DAVANAGERE- 5770 02

                   4.     YOGENDRA NAIKA H.B
                          AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
                          S/O HARJANAIKA
                          ASSISTANT TEACHER
                                   -2-
                                             WA No. 1107 of 2022




     HALLI MALLAPURA VILLAGE
     KARIKATTE POST, CHANNAGIRI TALUK
     DAVANAGERE DISTRICT- 577 213
                                                ...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. ABDULLA T I., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT No.1
 SRI S.RAJASHEKARA, AGA FOR RSPONDENT Nos.2 AND 3
 SRI SHIVANANDA METI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT No.4)

       THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
14.06.2022 IN W.P No.23913/2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

      THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                             JUDGMENT

I.A No.1/2022 is filed seeking condonation of delay of 118

days in filing the writ appeal.

For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the

application, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. I.A No.1/2022 is

allowed.

The appeal is taken up for hearing.

2. Vide order dated 14.03.2023, it was observed by us that the

issue for consideration in this appeal would be limited only with

respect to the liability of payment of back wages.

3. The appellant/petitioner had filed writ petition challenging the

order of the Education Appellate Tribunal dated 25.04.2013. The

appellant is an educational institute. The Tribunal vide order dated

WA No. 1107 of 2022

25.04.2013 allowed the appeal presented by respondent No.1

herein (appellant before the Tribunal) and the order of dismissal of

respondent No.1 was set aside. The Tribunal further directed

appellant and respondent Nos.2 and 3 (respondent Nos.1 to 3

before the Tribunal) to take respondent No.1 on duty as Assistant

Teacher against the vacancy available in the appellant - institution

within one month from the date of the order and pay admissible

salary and other emoluments. The Tribunal further directed the

appellant - institution to pay back wages to the respondent No.1

from 16.02.2012 on which the date the post of Assistant Teacher at

Sri Jagadguru Renukarchaya Residential High School, Dodda

Abbigere became vacant after respondent of No.4 was promoted at

the rate admissible as per Rules.

4. The learned counsel for appellant submitted that the direction

of the Tribunal to pay back wages to respondent No.1 and

subsequently, the order passed by the learned Single Judge

wherein again direction is issued for payment of the back wages to

respondent No.1 was a serious error. The learned counsel for the

appellant invited our attention to the averments made in the appeal

memo filed by respondent No.1 before the Tribunal that she was

WA No. 1107 of 2022

appointed as Assistant Teacher in a school which is a private

education institute.

5. Our attention was also invited to the order of the Education

Appellate Tribunal wherein reasons are assigned in paragraph 6 of

the order. It is stated that the facts that the school run by appellant

herein is included in grant-in-aid and the Government is paying

salary to the teachers in the said school and that appellant herein is

managing the school are not in dispute. There is no denial to these

factual statements by any of the respondents. As such, the

submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the

appellant institute is a grant-in-aid institute will have to be

accepted.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the post

occupied by respondent No.1 subsequent to her dismissal was

occupied by respondent No.4 for some time and subsequently,

respondent No.4 was promoted and the post was lying vacant.

Before the Tribunal, respondent No.4 has stated that respondent

No.4 was appointed in a clear vacancy which was reserved for the

SC category candidates. It is stated that a notification was issued

by the appellant and in response to that notification, respondent

WA No. 1107 of 2022

No.4 submitted his claim and he was selected. We may not dwell

upon this controversy, as the issue, as we have referred in earlier

part, is only with regard to whether the back wages to be paid

either by the appellant or the State Government.

7. Now, when the fact that the appellant institute is a grant-in-

aid institute is accepted, the liability is on the Government to pay

back wages to respondent No.1 as per the order of the Tribunal

which is confirmed by the learned Single Judge.

8. At this stage, it is submitted by the learned Additional

Government Advocate that if the appellant submits the entire and

necessary material before the Government indicating all the

necessary details such the details of the date on which the post

falling vacant, when respondent No.4 entered into service, whether

respondent No.1 was occupying the post as a candidate belonging

to General Category, etc., the State Government would verify the

same as early as possible and on verification of the same disburse

the amount in favour of the appellant as expeditiously as possible

so that the appellant, in turn, can disburse the amount to

respondent No.1.

WA No. 1107 of 2022

9. This entire exercise would certainly require some time. The

learned counsel for respondent No.1 is justified in making his

submission that respondent No.1 is deprived of entire retirement

benefits and back wages; and making respondent No.1 to wait for

further indefinite period would cause a serious prejudice to her.

The learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the due and

payable amount against the back wages may be approximately

Rs.15 lakh.

10. Considering these submissions, in our opinion, the direction

to the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- to respondent

No.1 would be an order in the interest of justice and striking the

balance of the claims between the parties about their respective

claims.

11. Accordingly, the appellant is directed to disburse the said

amount of Rs.7,50,000/- to respondent No.1, as expeditiously as

possible and not later than six weeks from the date of the order of

this Court. The appellant is further directed to submit the entire

material along with necessary documents to the State Government

within two weeks from today. On receipt of such material, the

WA No. 1107 of 2022

authorities of the State Government to verify the same within eight

weeks and settle the claim by issuing necessary orders.

12. We, further observe that in case the amount against the

unpaid back wages of respondent No.1 is more than Rs.7,50,000/-,

the State Government to release necessary amount in favour of the

appellant immediately and the appellant would be entitled for

reimbursement of the amount of Rs.7,50,000/- from the

Government on final settlement of the claim. Insofar as other

emoluments and pensionary benefits are concerned, needless to

state that the State Government may also take appropriate steps to

see that the said amount is disbursed to respondent No.1 as

expeditiously as possible.

13. The learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions,

submits that respondent No.1 had initiated execution proceedings

against the appellant as well as the State Authorities. In response,

the learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the

proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 is only against the

Government Authorities and order is passed only against the

Government Authority. As such, it seems that the apprehension

expressed by the learned counsel for the appellant is on erroneous

WA No. 1107 of 2022

information. However, the learned counsel for respondent No.1, to

show the bona fides of respondent No.1, submits that respondent

No.1 will not precipitate the execution proceedings against the

appellant in view of the order of this Court.

14. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.

15. In view of disposal of the writ appeal, no separate orders are

required to be passed on the pending interlocutory application.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

AHB