Karnataka High Court

Sri Prasad B R vs Sri. Ravitheja on 25 July, 2024

                                            -1-
                                                    NC: 2024:KHC:30290-DB
                                                      WA No. 245 of 2024
                                                  C/W WA No. 699 of 2024
                                                     CCC No. 175 of 2024


                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                         DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

                                        PRESENT

                      THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE

                                            AND

                          THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND

                          WRIT APPEAL NO. 245 OF 2024 (S-RES)
                      C/W WRIT APPEAL NO. 699 OF 2024 (S-RES) AND
                               CCC NO. 175 OF 2024 (CIVIL)


               IN WRIT APPEAL NO.245/2024

               BETWEEN:
               1.   SRI PRASAD B.R.
                    AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
                    S/O LATE RAJU B.S.
                    R/A NO.194/A
                    CHIKKERE STREET FORT
Digitally           ARAKALGUD
signed by           HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 102
AMBIKA H B                                                   ...APPELLANT
Location:     (BY SRI K.N. NITISH, ADVOCATE FOR
High Court of SRI K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE)
Karnataka
               AND:
               1.   THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
                    STATE BANK OF MYSORE
                    REGION-1, BANGALORE ZONE-2
                    B.K.G COMPLEX
                    AVENUE ROAD
                    GROUND FLOOR
                    BANGALORE - 560 009
                             -2-
                                      NC: 2024:KHC:30290-DB
                                       WA No. 245 of 2024
                                   C/W WA No. 699 of 2024
                                      CCC No. 175 of 2024


2.   THE BRANCH MANAGER
     STATE BANK OF MYSORE
     DODDABALLAPURA BRANCH - 400 026
     PIN - 561 203
                                        ...RESPONDENTS
(SRI N. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT No.2)

      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL
AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 12.09.2023 IN W.P. No.18390/2010
(S-RES) TO THE EXTENT THAT ONLY 10% BACK WAGES IS
AWARDED AND CONSEQUENTIALLY DIRECT PAYMENT OF FULL
BACK WAGES IS NOT AWARDED & ETC.



IN W.A. NO. 699 OF 2024

BETWEEN:
1.   THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
     AND ANOTHER
     STATE BANK OF INDIA
     (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STATE BANK OF MYSORE)
     REGION-I, BANGALORE
     ZONE-2, B.K.G. COMPLEX
     AVENUE ROAD
     GROUND FLOOR
     BANGALORE - 560 009

     NOW REPRESENTED BY
     THE REGIONAL MANAGER
     NOW STATE BANK OF INDIA(63897)
     RBO-06, AO-2, BANGALORE NORTH
     NETWORK-01, SURYA ASPIRE
     1ST FLOOR, MUNICIPAL KHATHA
     NO.205446-2447448-120-3
     DEVANAHALLI BYPASS ROAD
     BANGALORE - 562 110
     BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
     KARNATAKA
                                  -3-
                                         NC: 2024:KHC:30290-DB
                                           WA No. 245 of 2024
                                       C/W WA No. 699 of 2024
                                          CCC No. 175 of 2024


2.   THE BRANCH MANAGER
     FORMERLY STATE BANK OF MYSORE
     NOW STATE BANK OF INDIA
     DODDABALLAPURA BRANCH-400 026
     POST OFFICE ROAD
     POST BOX NO.1
     PIN - 561 203
                                                ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI N. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:
1.   SRI. PRASAD B.R.
     S/O LATE RAJU B.S.
     AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
     RESIDING AT NO.194/A
     CHIKKERE STREET
     FORT, ARAKALGUD - 573 102
     HASSAN DISTRICT
                                               ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.N. NITISH, ADVOCATE FOR
 SRI K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE)

       THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 12/09/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN W.P. NO.18390/2010 (S-RES) AND ALLOW THE APPEAL.



IN CCC NO. 175 OF 2024 (CIVIL)

BETWEEN:
1.   SRI PRASAD B.R.
     AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
     S/O LATE RAJU B.S.
     R/A NO.194/A,
     CHIKKERE STREET, FORT
     ARAKALGUD
     HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 102
     PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
     NO.191/1, BEHIND SRI RAMA STREET
                                 -4-
                                         NC: 2024:KHC:30290-DB
                                           WA No. 245 of 2024
                                       C/W WA No. 699 of 2024
                                          CCC No. 175 of 2024


     UTTARADI MUTT ROAD
     MYSURU - 570 004.
                                               ...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI K.N. NITISH, ADVOCATE FOR
 SRI K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE)


AND:
1.   SRI RAVITHEJA
     THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
     STATE BANK OF MYSORE
     PRESENTLY SBI
     REGION-1, BANGALORE ZONE-2
     B.K.G COMPLEX, AVENUE ROAD
     GROUND FLOOR
     BANGALORE - 560 009.

2.   SRI. ANKE GOWDA
     THE BRANCH MANAGER
     STATE BANK OF MYSORE
     PRESENTLY SBI
     DODDABALLAPURA BRANCH
     PIN - 561 203.
                                                   ...ACCUSED
(BY SRI N. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)

       THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1971, R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE
CONSTITION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED FOR
HAVING COMMITTED THE CONTEMPT OF THE COURT OF ORDER
DATED     12.09.2023   PASSED     BY   THE   LEARNED   SINGLE
JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.18390/2010 AT
ANNEXURE-A & ETC.

       THESE APPEALS AND CCC, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
                                  -5-
                                          NC: 2024:KHC:30290-DB
                                           WA No. 245 of 2024
                                       C/W WA No. 699 of 2024
                                          CCC No. 175 of 2024




CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
       N. V. ANJARIA
       and
       HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND

                          ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

Learned Single Judge by his judgment and order dated

12.09.2023 allowed Writ Petition No.18390 of 2010 filed by the

employee. The Bank was directed to reinstate the petitioner-

employee forthwith. Learned Single Judge awarded backwages to

the extent of 10%.

1.1 Two appeals came to be preferred against the aforesaid

judgment and order. Writ Appeal No.245 of 2024 was by the

petitioner who was aggrieved for the reason that only 10%, and not

100% backwages were granted. The other writ appeal was by the

employer-State Bank of Mysore which was directed against the

order of reinstatement.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. K.N. Nitish for learned advocate

Mr. K.V. Narasimhan and learned advocate Mr. N. Venkatesh for

NC: 2024:KHC:30290-DB

the respective parties in which they appeared in the appeal

concerned.

3. Noticing the basic facts, petitioner was an employee of State

Bank of Mysore, working as sub-staff as permanent employee at a

branch office. It was the case of the petitioner that he suffered

from severe L.S. Spondilites which was disc displacement, in the

month of April 2005, due to which he could not attend the duties as

he was advised complete rest. It appears that Medical Certificate

was produced by the petitioner-employee before the Inquiring

Authorities. The Bank however issued communications dated

30.11.2008 and 12.11.2009 stating and reiterating that the

petitioner failed to report for duty, therefore, he deemed to have

voluntarily retired from service with effect from 01.12.2008.

3.1 It was the said communications dated 30.11.2008 and

12.11.2009 which came to be called in question by the petitioner

before learned Single Judge, praying for reinstatement with

consequential benefits. It was the case that the petitioner had

already informed the Bank on 12.06.2006 about his disc injury and

the Bank had addressed letter dated 15.05.2006 to report to the

Chief Medical Officer of the Bank and that the Chief Medical

NC: 2024:KHC:30290-DB

Officer, thereafter, had issued the Certificate, which was to the

effect that the petitioner was fit for duty. It is the case of the

petitioner that thereafter he reported for duty on 30.05.2006, but

was prevented from joining.

3.2 As the facts further show, and also recorded by learned

Single Judge that thereafter, on 30.10.2008, the Bank issued a

memo stating that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent. The

petitioner gave reply to state that the letter was received on

24.11.2008 and that he reported back for duty on 06.12.2008.

Learned Single Judge recorded that the Bank had received the

said letter on 28.11.2008.

4. It is the finding recorded by learned Single Judge that despite

the aforesaid letter of the petitioner showing readiness to join the

duty, memo dated 30.11.2008 was given to the petitioner by the

Bank treating him to be deemed to have voluntarily retired from

service with effect from 01.12.2008. It was concluded that in view

of the correspondence and readiness of the petitioner reflected

therein to come back on duty, the action on part of the Bank in

treating the petitioner having voluntarily retired was not justified.

NC: 2024:KHC:30290-DB

4.1 Following finding was recorded by learned Single Judge in

paragraph 29,

"In light of these facts, it cannot be alleged by the Bank that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent. It is to be seen that when the Bank ultimately issued to him a Memo dated 30.10.2008, calling upon him to join for duty within 30 days, he had submitted a reply dated 24.11.2008 (Annexure-H) stating that he was out of town and that he would report for duty on 06.12.2008. Though the Bank received this letter on 28.11.2008 it has proceeded to issue the impugned Endorsement stating that the petitioner was deemed to have voluntarily retired from service with effect from 01.12.2008. The fact that the Bank issued this Memo indicating a deemed voluntary retirement, even though it had received the petitioner's letter on 28.11.2008, indicates that the intention of the Bank was to somehow keep the petitioner out of service."

5. Thus, the facts go to show that the petitioner was not allowed

to join the duty by the Bank on the pretext that he first had to

submit his leave letter along with medical certificate. When the

petitioner was time and again writing letters, had expressed his

willingness to join the duty and had also reported for duty factually,

the action on part of the Bank to treat the petitioner deemed to

have voluntarily retired, was rightly held to be untenable in law by

learned Single Judge. It was erroneous on part of the Bank to treat

NC: 2024:KHC:30290-DB

the petitioner as having unauthorisedly absent. Consequently, the

petition was allowed, as above.

5.1 Today when the appeal come up for consideration, learned

advocate for respondent No.2-Bank stated that the Bank has

decided to reinstate the petitioner and that the petitioner has been

accordingly reinstated. It was stated that the petitioner has

resumed the services also. In other words, the impugned order of

voluntary retiring the petitioner which was set aside by learned

Single Judge, no more requires any further adjudication on that

count as the petitioner is reinstated.

6. This leaves the Court with the aspect of grant of backwages

to the extent of 10%. In the writ appeal filed by the petitioner, he

has challenged the non-grant of backwages to the extent of 10%.

6.1 It is trite principle that granting of backwages to the extent

thereof is always discretion of the Court to be exercised on relevant

considerations. The award of backwages is not automatic while it

depends upon several relevant considerations.

7. While awarding backwages of 10%, learned Single Judge

has given the following reasons,

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:30290-DB

"As far as back-wages are concerned, it is noticed that there was a delay on the part of the petitioner in responding to the intimations issued by the Bank and there was also another shortcoming on the part of the petitioner inasmuch as the fact that he went on a protracted correspondence of the Bank instead of reporting for duty, or, in the alternative, approaching the Court of law. Therefore, in my view, interest of justice would be met with if the petitioner is granted 10% back-wages."

8. Thus, the aspect of delay on part of the petitioner is

considered by learned Single Judge to consider the grant of

backwages to the extent of 10%.

9. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the discretion

exercised by learned Single Judge. The grant of 10% backwages

could be said to be on a valid and relevant consideration that the

petitioner was always late in responding to the intimations of the

Bank and that he indulged into the long correspondence instead of

reporting for duty or in approaching the Court of law.

10. No interference is warranted in the order of learned Single

Judge which awards 10% backwages.

- 11 -