Karnataka High Court
The Member Secretary vs Basavarajappagouda And Ors on 15 July, 2025
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3913-DB
WA No. 200190 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200237 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA
WRIT APPEAL NO.200190 OF 2024 (S-RES)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO.200237 OF 2024 (S-RES)
IN WRIT APPEAL NO.200190 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
THE MEMBER SECRETARY,
REPRESENTED BY,
DR. NANDITA,
W/O SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR
Digitally signed by
BASALINGAPPA AGE: 49 YEARS,
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON OCC: THE MEMBER SECRETARY,
Location: HIGH DISTRICT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SOCIETY,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ZILLA PANCHAYAT, RAICHUR - 584 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SUBRAMANYA JOISH SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. HEMA L. KULAKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BASAVARAJAPPAGOUDA
S/O UMAPATIGOUDA
AGE: 31 YEARS,
OCC: FORMERLY WORKING AS DISTRICT PROGRAM
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3913-DB
WA No. 200190 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200237 of 2024
HC-KAR
COORDINATOR, DISTRICT HEALTH AND FAMILY
WELFARE OFFICE, RAICHUR, RESIDENT OF
VANDLIHOSUR, POST VANDALI,
TQ: LINGASURGUR,
RAICHUR - 58412.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGLAURU - 560001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER (HEALTH),
AROGYA SOUDHA,
MAGADI ROAD, BENGLAURU - 560 023.
4. THE MISSION DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL HEALTH MISSION DIRECTORATE OF
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
1ST FLOOR WEST DIVISION,
MAGADI ROAD, AROGYA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560023.
5. THE DIRECTOR,
DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH AND
FAMILY WELFARE, 1ST FLOOR, WEST DIVISION,
MAGADI ROAD, AROGYA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560023.
6. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR (RCH),
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER,
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
1ST FLOOR, WEST DIVISION,
MAGADI ROAD, AROGYA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560023.
7. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA STATE HEALTH RESOURCE,
SERVICE CENTRE,
BENGALURU - 560 023.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3913-DB
WA No. 200190 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200237 of 2024
HC-KAR
8. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYAT,
RAICHUR - 584101.
9. THE DIVISIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR,
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE OFFICE,
KALABURAGI DIVISION,
BEHIND, S.P. OFFICE,
KALABURAGI - 585101.
10. THE DISTRICT HEALTH AND FAMILY
WELFARE OFFICER, RAICHUR - 584101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI D.P. AMBEKAR, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY-GA FOR R2 TO R7 & R9;
SRI GOURISH KHASHAMPUR, ADV. FOR R8 & 10)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
HIGH COURT ACT 1961, PRAYING TO REVERSE AND SET-ASIDE
THE FINAL ORDER DATED 30.07.2024 RENDERED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP.NO.203535/2023 (S-RES) AND
DISMISS THE SAID WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT,
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN WRIT APPEAL NO.200237 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
BASAVARAJAPPAGOUDA
S/O. UMAPATIGOUDA
AGE:32 YEARS,
OCC: FORMERLY WORKING AS DISTRICT
PROGRAM CO-ORDINATOR,
DISTRICT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE OFFICE,
RAICHUR, R/O: VANDLIHOSUR,
POST VANDALI, TQ: LINGASURGUR,
DIST: RAICHUR - 584122.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI D. P. AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE)
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3913-DB
WA No. 200190 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200237 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ,
VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER (HEALTH),
AROGYA SOUDHA, MAGADI ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 023.
3. THE MISSION DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL HEALTH MISSION,
DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE,
1ST FLOOR, WEST DIVISION,
MAGADI ROAD, AROGYA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 023.
4. THE DIRECTOR,
DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH AND
FAMILY WELFARE, 1ST FLOOR, WEST DIVISION,
MAGADI ROAD, AROGYA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 023.
5. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR (RCH)
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER,
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
AROGYA SOUDHA, MAGADI ROAD,
BENGALURU- 560 023.
6. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA STATE HEALTH RESOURCE
SERVICE CENTRE, BENGALURU - 560 023.
7. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ZILLA PANCHAYAT,
RAICHUR - 584 101.
8. THE DIVISIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR,
KALABURAGI DIVISION,
BEHIND S.P. OFFICE,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3913-DB
WA No. 200190 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200237 of 2024
HC-KAR
KALABURAGI - 585 105.
9. THE DISTRICT HEALTH AND FAMILY
WELFARE OFFICER,
RAICHUR - 584 101.
10. THE MEMBER SECRETARY,
DISTRICT HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE SOCIETY,
ZILLA PANCHAYAT, RAICHUR - 584 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY-GA FOR R1 TO R6 & R8;
SRI GOURISH S. KHASHAMPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R7 & R9;
SRI SUBRAMANYA JOISH SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. HEMA L. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R10)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
HIGH COURT ACT 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL
AND SET ASIDE THE PART OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED
03.07.2024 PASSED BY THE LD. SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.203535/2023 ONLY IN SO FAR IT
HAS NOT ORDERED BACK WAGES AND CONTINUITY OF SERVICE,
AND FURTHER GRANT THE RELIEF OF BACK WAGES, CONTINUITY
OF SERVICE AND ALL CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEFS AND ALSO
DELETE THE LIBERTY GRANTED TO THE RESPONDENTS, IN THE
INTERST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE WRIT APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 02.07.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED
THEREIN AS UNDER:.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3913-DB
WA No. 200190 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200237 of 2024
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K. S. HEMALEKHA)
1. Aggrieved by the Official Memorandum dated
15.12.2023 issued by the Member Secretary District
Health and Family Welfare Society, Zilla Panchayat,
Raichur (respondent No.10 in W.P.No.203535/2023),
terminating from service, the petitioner approached the
learned Single Judge by filing W.P.No.203535/2023.
2. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition,
setting aside the termination order and directed
reinstatement of the petitioner into service without back-
wages and further directed that the petitioner's contractual
term to be continued subject to his eligibility. Aggrieved
by the said order, W.A.No.200190/2024 is preferred by
the Member Secretary represented in her personal
capacity, challenging the direction of reinstatement of the
petitioner. W.A.No.200237/2024 is preferred by the
petitioner, challenging denial of back-wages.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3913-DB
HC-KAR
3. Heard Sri Subramanya Jois, learned Senior
Counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.200190/2024, Sri
D.P.Ambekar, learned counsel for appellant in
W.A.No.200237/2024, Sri Gourish S. Khashampur, learned
counsel for respondent Nos.7 and 9 in
W.A.No.200237/2024, Sri Mallikarjun C. Basareddy,
learned Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 6
and 8.
4. At the outset, panel counsel Sri Gourish S.
Khashampur, for respondent Nos.7 and 9 in
W.A.No.200237/2024 has drawn the attention of this
Court to the fact that the appellant in
W.A.No.200190/20224 has preferred the appeal in her
individual capacity without there being any authorization
from the competent authority or District Health Family and
Welfare Society. It is contended that the said appellant
was party in the writ petition only in her official capacity
and not personally.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3913-DB
HC-KAR
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant in W.A.No.200190/2024 submits that the
petitioner has unfairly made vague and unfolded
allegations against the appellant, which are only
uncharitable and baseless. It is contended that the Official
Memorandum (termination order) was issued in
accordance with the rules and not in retaliation. Primarily
it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the
appellant, who was respondent No.10 in writ petition, had
neither received notice of the writ proceedings, nor
engaged any counsel, nor executed a vakalath in the said
petition. Thus, she had no knowledge of proceedings or
disposal of the writ petition. It is therefore argued that
the principles of natural justice have been violated, as the
appellant has not been given opportunity of being heard in
the writ petition. As stated, the prime contention is that
the appellant must be heard and the order passed without
her participation is vitiated.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3913-DB
HC-KAR
6. In light of the submission made by the learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in
W.A.No.200190/2024, particularly concerning the
statements made against the said appellant (respondent
No.10 in the writ petition), Sri D.P.Ambekar, learned
counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.200237/2024
(petitioner in the writ petition) upon instructions submits
that the petitioner be permitted to withdraw impugned
statements made in the writ petition.
7. The said submission is recorded which would be
reflected in the later part of the order.
8. On merits, learned counsel for the appellant in
W.A.No.200237/2024 submits that the issuance of show
cause notice was a retaliatory measure. It is submitted
that the petitioner had earlier filed complaint against one
Smt. Krishnaveni, alleging misappropriation of funds and
had also raised concerns that Asha Workers file being
withheld from his purview. In this regard, the petitioner
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3913-DB
HC-KAR
had sought clarification from respondent No.9 - The
District Health and Family Welfare Officer, instead of
conducting an enquiry into the petitioner's complaint,
respondent Nos.9 allegedly issued show cause notices
dated 13.07.2023 and 19.10.2023, respectively, ultimately
culminating in the termination order dated 15.12.2023.
9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant in W.A.200237/2024 that the impugned
termination order is stigmatic in nature, purporting to act
upon allegations of misconduct. It is submitted that the
learned Single Judge having noticed that there was no
opportunity of hearing and there was violation of principles
of natural justice, has rightly set aside the order of
termination. It is brought to the notice of this Court that
the appellant/petitioner remained unemployed for a
continuous period of 7-8 months following the termination
and was unable to secure alternate employment, thereby
suffering severe financial hardship. Learned counsel
emphasis that he is the sole bread winner of the family of
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3913-DB
HC-KAR
five including his three minor children and denial of back-
wages would cause undue hardship and prejudice in the
given circumstances.
10. Learned counsel for the State Government has
drawn the attention of the Court to the Circular dated
18.05.2022 (Annexure-L) issued by the National Health
Mission, contending that the said Circular mandates that
before effecting termination of an employee appointed
under the Scheme, prior approval of Project Director is
necessary and in the present case the impugned order of
termination dated 15.12.2023 issued by respondent No.10
(in writ petition) - Member Secretary does not disclose
that any such approval was sought or obtained.
11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing
for the parties, the points that fall for consideration before
this Court are:
1. Whether the appellant (Member Secretary),
who claims she neither engaged nor
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3913-DB
HC-KAR
instructed any counsel in the writ petition,
can validly claim lack of notice and thus
challenge the maintainability of the order
impugned, even though a standing counsel
appeared for respondent Nos.7 and 10 as
recorded by the Court?
2. Whether the appellant in
W.A.No.200237/2024 whose termination has
been set aside on the ground of violation of
principles of natural justice, is entitled to
back-wages and if so, to what extent,
considering he was a contractual employee?
12. Point No.1: The termination order dated
15.12.2023 was issued Ex-officio by the Member
Secretary, District Health and Family Welfare Society -
respondent No.10 in the writ petition. As such, the
challenge impugned in the writ petition arose from the
official discharge of duties, and not in any personal or
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3913-DB
HC-KAR
private capacity. In such case, the proper person to
challenge the order impugned in the writ petition is the
Institution or Authority represented through its competent
officer, not the officer in person, unless the
judgment/order contained personal findings or directions
against the officer. Though the statements were made in
certain paragraphs against the Member Secretary in the
writ petition, statements have now been withdrawn by the
counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant in
W.A.No.200237/2024. In view of the same, the writ
appeal by the Member Secretary in her individual capacity
is not maintainable and moreover, learned standing
counsel appeared for respondent Nos.7 and 10 in the writ
petition, accordingly point No.1 is answered.
13. Point No.2: It is not in dispute that the
petitioner was a contractual employee. The learned Single
Judge found the termination being one without following
the principles of natural justice. As it is also asserted by
the petitioner/appellant in writ appeal that the appellant
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3913-DB
HC-KAR
was not gainfully employed during the period of
termination and has dependent family responsibilities.
However, bearing in mind that order of reinstatement
would not automatically make the person entitled for
back-wages, in order to weigh equity, some form of
compensatory relief may be justified and we are of the
opinion that it is just and proper to award 50% of the
back-wages from the date of termination till the date of
reinstatement as a compensatory relief. Accordingly, point
No.2 is answered.
14. For the foregoing reasons, we pass the
following:
ORDER
i) W.A.No.200190/2024 is hereby
disposed of.
ii) W.A.No.200237/2024 is allowed in
part. The appellant is entitled for 50%
of the back-wages for the period
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3913-DB
HC-KAR
between the date of termination and till
the date of reinstatement as a
compensatory relief rather than as a
matter of right.
iii) The appropriate authority to disburse the
backwages within a period of six weeks
from the date of release of this order.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K S HEMALEKHA)
JUDGE
AT,BL
CT:NI
