logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide

24

  •            

 
CDJ 2025 Kar HC 2014 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Karnataka
Case No : Writ Petition No. 28839 Of 2024 (S-RES)
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
Parties : Mallesh Versus Zilla Panchayath, Represented By Its Chief Executive Officer, Chamarajanagar & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: P.N. Nanja Reddy, Advocate. For the Respondents: Chandrakanth R Goulay., Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 17-12-2025
Head Note :-
Constitution of India  - Article 226 -

Comparative Citation:
2025 KHC 53911,
Judgment :-

(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the R-1 to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner at Annexure-D dated 20.03.2020 by reinstating the petitioner into service as bill collector and pay the arrears of salary from the date of illegal order of dismissal dated 06.03.3030 till the date of reinstatement and grant all the consequential benefits. quash the order of dismissal dated 06.03.2020 passed by the R-2 (Annexure-C) as the same is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act. direct the R-2 to reinstate the petitioner into service and pay the full back wages from the date of illegal dismissal from service dated 06.03.2020 consequent upon quashing the order Annexure-C and grant all the consequential benefits and etc.)

Oral Order

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:

          (i) Direct respondent No.1 to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner at Annexure- D dated 20.03.2020 by reinstating the petitioner into service as Bill Collector and pay the arrears of salary from the date of illegal order of dismissal dated 06.03.3030 till the date of reinstatement and grant all the consequential benefits;

          (ii) To quash the order of dismissal dated 06.03.2020 passed by respondent No.2 (Annexure-C) as the same is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act.

          (iii) Direct respondent No.2 to reinstate the petitioner into service and pay the full back wages from the date of illegal dismissal from service dated 06.03.2020 consequent upon quashing the order Annexure-C and grant all the consequential benefits;

          (iv) Direct respondent No.2 to pay a sum of Rs.2,64,534/- as directed to be paid in terms of the order passed in W.A.No.3887/2019 as per Annexure-F dated 24.07.2024 towards difference of 25 percent of the arrears of salary and grant all the consequential benefits."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the petitioner restricts his prayer only to prayer (i).

3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows:

4. The petitioner joined the service of respondent No.2 as a Bill Collector in 1998. The petitioner was dismissed from service by respondent No.2 on 18.06.2011. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 18.06.2011, preferred an appeal before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 passed an order on 14.05.2012 by allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of dismissal from service and also indicated that the respondents have not acted in accordance with law and that there is dereliction of duties by the Secretary.

5. Despite the same, respondent No.2, at the instigation of the Elected Body, has not implemented the order, though he is duty bound to do so.

6. The petitioner has filed a petition in W.P. No.36073 of 2013 and the same came to be allowed with a direction to respondent No.2 to reinstate the petitioner into service and pay the arrears of salary vide order dated 24.06.2019. The respondents reinstated the petitioner on 29.07.2019 and he is working as such.

7. Thereafter, a notice has been issued to the petitioner since he approached this Court questioning the order passed against him, and again, he was dismissed from service on 06.03.2020.

8. Respondent No.2 filed a writ appeal in W.A. No.3887 of 2019. The said writ appeal was disposed of on 24.07.2024.

9. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of termination from service dated 06.03.2020 preferred an appeal before respondent No.1 on 20.03.2020.

10. Respondent No.1 has not passed any order on the appeal filed by the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.

11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 has passed an order of termination which was set aside by respondent No.1. The petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P. No.36073 of 2013. The said writ petition was allowed and a direction was issued to respondent No.2 to reinstate the petitioner into service and to pay arrears of salary. He submits that, again the petitioner was terminated from service without any enquiry on 06.03.2020, against which, the petitioner approached respondent No.1 by filing an appeal in 2020, and for the last more than 4½ years, respondent No.1 has not passed any order. He submits that a direction be issued to respondent No.1 to dispose of the appeal within time-bound.

13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that if a reasonable time is granted, respondent No.1 would dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.

14. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

15. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is working in respondent No.2-Panchayath, and earlier, he was terminated from service on 18.06.2011 and the said order was challenged, and the order of earlier dismissal was set aside and respondent No.2 was directed to reinstate the petitioner into service and pay the arrears of salary.

16. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.36073 of 2013, the petitioner was reinstated into service, however, he was not fully paid the arrears of salary. Again, the petitioner was terminated from service on 06.03.2020.

17. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of termination dated 06.03.2020 preferred an appeal before respondent No.1 in the year 2020. Respondent No.1, instead of disposing of the appeal, has not taken the appeal for consideration.

18. As the appeal is of the year 2020, it would be appropriate if a direction is issued to respondent No.1 to dispose of the appeal, as the petitioner is out of service.

19. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents, I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

          (I) The writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.1 to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

 
  CDJLawJournal