Karnataka High Court
Sri A Raghupathy Bhat vs The Board Of Management Of on 26 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:49010-DB
WA No. 3417 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL No. 3417 OF 2016 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI A. RAGHUPATHY BHAT,
S/O VASUDEV BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/A MOODU ALEVOOR VILLAGE,
ALEVOOR POST, VIA UDYAVARA,
UDUPI (TQ) & (DIST)-574133.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SONA VAKKUND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by VALLI 1. THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF
MARIMUTHU
Location: HIGH SRI VENKATARAMANA EDUCATIONAL TURST
COURT OF KARKALA-574102
KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAVINDRANATH K., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT
PETITION No.12867/2013 DATED 21/1/16 BY ALLOWING THIS
WRIT APPEAL WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE &
EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:49010-DB
WA No. 3417 of 2016
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This writ appeal has been filed praying for setting
aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition No.12867/2013 dated 21.01.2016. By means of the
impugned judgment, two writ petitions filed by each of the
parties were dismissed by a common order. Under challenge in
the writ petition that was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution, is the order dated 18.01.2013 passed in
Execution Case No.191/2007 on the file of the District Judge,
Udupi that pertained to Item Nos.1 to 3 of the memo of
calculations and applying Karnataka Educational Institutions
(Recruitment and Terms and Conditions of Service of
Employees in Aided Colleges of Education and Teachers
NC: 2025:KHC:49010-DB
HC-KAR
Training Institutes) Rules, 20011 while calculating subsistence
allowance.
3. It appears that an order was passed by the
Educational Appellate Tribunal2 in EAT No.5/1997 dated
17.08.2000. The Tribunal aforesaid is constituted under Section
10 of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline
and Control) Act, 19753. The aforesaid order dated 17.08.2000
passed by the Tribunal was challenged in civil revision petitions
under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 19084 before this
Court in Civil Revision Petition No.3150/2000 connected with
Civil Revision Petition No.3436/2000. By a common order
dated 11.07.2002, the Court observed that since effectively,
the Court is setting aside the order of the disciplinary authority,
therefore, the cut off date would be 17.08.2000, with the
employee being entitled to claim subsistence allowance till that
date and to claim the arrears of salary and back wages on and
from 19.08.2000. The Institution was directed to compute and
2001 Rules
Tribunal
Act of 1975
CPC
NC: 2025:KHC:49010-DB
HC-KAR
pay over to the employee the arrears within an outer limit of
four months from the date of the order. Other directions
regarding terminal benefits and pension were also given.
However, this Court noted certain distinguishing features in the
case and the back wages were not allowed.
4. Thereafter, a Review Petition No.88/2003 was filed
by the appellant herein seeking review of the aforesaid
judgment dated 11.07.2002 passed in CRP No.3105/2000
connected with CRP No.3436/2000. The aforesaid review
petition was disposed of refusing interference but observing
that in view of the settled meaning of the word back wages, it
was unnecessary to make any clarification in the order and if
there is any dispute regarding the quantum of the amount to
be paid by the respondent as per the order passed by this
Court on 11.07.2002, it is open to the petitioner to approach
the Tribunal to execute the award passed in favour of the
petitioner.
5. It appears that execution proceedings were filed by
the appellant, in which an order dated 18.01.2013 was passed,
which was subjected to challenge by both the parties in Writ
NC: 2025:KHC:49010-DB
HC-KAR
Petition No.8692/2013 connected with Writ Petition
No.12867/2013. Both the petitions were disposed of by the
learned Single Judge of this Court holding that the grievance of
the teacher, that the computation of the amounts by the
Execution Court is not in terms of Item Nos.1 and 3 of his
memo of calculations, is devoid of merit. The computation of
the amounts by the Execution Court is in the letter and spirit of
this Court's order passed in the revision petitions and in the
review petition and other petitions. While dismissing the
aforesaid writ petitions, this Court had observed that the
teacher would be entitled to amounts as per the revised pay
scales during the period for which back wages is to be paid. It
was further observed that a party is entitled to take advantage
of the commencement of the 2001 Rules. On the question of
awarding of interest by the execution Court, after referring to
judgments of the Supreme Court, granting of interest was held
to be justified.
5. On perusal of clause (d) of sub-section (4) of
Section 10 of the Act of 1975, it is evident that the Tribunal has
the same powers as are vested in a Court executing a decree of
NC: 2025:KHC:49010-DB
HC-KAR
a civil Court under the CPC, as if such orders were decrees of a
civil Court.
6. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant
is that it is the order of the Tribunal that was challenged before
the learned Single Judge and therefore, this writ appeal would
be maintainable, inasmuch as the petition was filed both under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
7. In our opinion, the powers of the Tribunal under the
Act of 1975 can be classified in two categories. One would be
the quasi-judicial power to adjudicate a dispute on its merit.
The other power would be the aspect of execution of its own
orders by exercising the same powers as are vested in a Court
executing a decree of a Civil Court under the CPC. The powers
of execution under Part-II and under Order XXI of the CPC
include judicial powers (e.g. Order XXI Rule 58 and Order XXI
Rule 101).
8. It needs no iteration that Courts and Tribunals both
come under the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution. As held by the Supreme Court
in the case of Radhey Shyam and Another v. Chhabi Nath
NC: 2025:KHC:49010-DB
HC-KAR
and Others5, matters emanating from orders passed by Civil
Courts, could be challenged under Article 227 and not under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, no writ
appeal would lie against a judgment passed on a petition under
Article 227. The order passed by the learned Single Judge in
the judgment impugned before this Court, has been passed
under Article 227 of the Constitution, given the fact that the
Tribunal was exercising its jurisdiction for executing its own
orders under the provisions of the CPC. Therefore, we hold
that the instant writ appeal is not maintainable.
9. This writ appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
SD/-
(JAYANT BANERJI)
JUDGE
SD/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
(2009)5 SCC 616
