Karnataka High Court
Sri Siddartha Education Society vs Dr.B.H Devaraju on 9 June, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:19569
WP No. 13350 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 13350 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI SIDDARTHA EDUCATION SOCIETY,
SIDDARTHA NAGARA POST OFFICE,
SSIT CAMPUS, MARALUR,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 105,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ASST. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI BHARATH B. YADAV, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI H.M. MURALIDHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DR. B.H.DEVARAJU,
S/O LATE B. HANUMANTHA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 'SWATHI NILAYA',
Digitally signed by SRI RANGA VIDYA MANDIRA ROAD,
NAGAVENI
Location: High BATAWADI, TUMAKURU - 572 103.
Court of Karnataka
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
2ND FLOOR, D.T.E BUILDING,
PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.H. DEVARAJU, R1 (PARTY-IN-PERSON))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 15.04.2025 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU IN EXECUTION NO.573/2023
VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:19569
WP No. 13350 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner-judgment debtor is before this Court
calling in question a communication dated 16.04.2025 by which
the concerned Court directs the petitioner-Institution to prepare
the pension papers and keep it ready.
2. Heard Sri Bharath B.Yadav, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of Sri H.M.Muralidhar, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
3. The petitioner is an Educational Institution in which
respondent No.1 was Associate Professor. The petitioner owing
to certain omissions and commissions had dismissed
respondent No.1 from service. The dismissal of which was
called in question by respondent No.1 in MA(EAT) No.3/2017.
The Educational Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'E.A.T.') by its
order dated 30.09.2023 set aside the order of dismissal and
passes the following order:
NC: 2025:KHC:19569
HC-KAR
" ORDER
Appeal filed by the appellant U/s.94 of the
Karnataka Education Act, 1983 Rule 38(15) of the
Karnataka Educational Institutions (Collegiate
Education) Rules, 2003 is partly allowed by setting
aside the dismissal order passed by respondent dated
07.11.2017 bearing No.SSFGCT/972/2017-18.
Already, the appellant had attained the age of
superannuation. Hence, respondent No.1 & 2 are
hereby directed to reinstate the appellant notionally to
the original post.
Appellant is entitled for back wages, continuity of
service and all other consequential benefits.
The period of suspension is hereby considered as
the period spent on duty by the appellant and thus,
appellant is entitled for all service benefits."
The said order is tossed before this Court in
W.P.No.5076/2024. The Co-ordinate Bench by its order dated
19.12.2024, rejects the challenge made by the petitioner
herein and affirms the order passed by the E.A.T. Therefore,
the petitioner becomes entitled to the relief that is granted by
the E.A.T., which was continuity of service and all other
consequential benefits as respondent No.1 on attaining the age
of superannuation.
4. In the light of the order not being complied, the
execution petition is preferred by respondent No.1 in
NC: 2025:KHC:19569
HC-KAR
Ex.No.573/2023 seeking to execute the decree passed by the
E.A.T. quoted supra. The concerned Court by the order
impugned directs the pension papers to be prepared. It is this
order that is called in question by the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
however contend that a writ appeal is pending against the
order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.5076/2024.
Therefore, the proceedings in execution must be arrested till
the Division Bench would hear the writ appeal.
6. The submission noted is only to be rejected. The
order of the concerned Court i.e., the E.A.T. is 30.09.2023.
The learned Single Judge affirms the said order by his order
dated 19.12.2024. If the petitioner has taken six (6) months to
get the writ appeal posted before the Court, the petitioner has
done it to his peril. Since there is no stay granted on the order
of the learned Single Judge before the Division Bench as on
today, there is no warrant to stay the proceedings in execution
quoted supra.
NC: 2025:KHC:19569
HC-KAR
7. In that light, finding no merit in the petition, the
petition stands rejected.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
CPN
CT: BHK
