IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.41064 OF 2012(S-RES) BETWEEN N H MEHABOOB SAB AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O AFTHAB PIPE LINE MASTRI NAGARASABE CHITRADURGA CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577501 (BY SRI M.CHIDANANDA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONER AND 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-01 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 9TH FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-01 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CHITRADURGA 577501 4. CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPALITY HOSADURGA CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577501 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SRIDHAR N HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3 SRI S MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE SALARY & OTHER SERVICE BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE PERIOD OF DISMISSAL I.E. FROM 18.12.2001 TO 29.9.2006 AS PER THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DT.29.9.2006 BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION DT. 05.07.2011 VIDE ANNX-E & REPRESENTATION DT.29.12.2010 VIDE ANNX-F TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner was working with the respondent No.4 Town Municipality as pipeline mastry and he was transferred to Davanagere Municipality. The post of the petitioner was regularised by order dated 27.08.1992. While the petitioner was working with the respondent No.4, action was initiated against the petitioner for being unauthorisedly absent between 31.01.2002 to 16.11.2000. By order dated 18.12.2001, the petitioner was dismissed from service.
2. The petitioner questioned the order of dismissal passed by the Deputy Commissioner, before the Director of Municipal Administration. The Director of Municipal Administration, remanded the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga, for fresh consideration. The Deputy Commissioner once again confirmed the earlier order and dismissed the petitioner from service. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Director of Municipal Administration, once again. By order dated 20.06.2003, the DMA dismissed the appeal, confirming the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner filed a review petition before the Government of Karnataka under Rule 26 of KCSR. The review petition was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the Director of Municipal Administration.
The Director of Municipal Administration, by order dated 07.08.2008 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of dismissal. Having set aside the order of dismissal, the Director of Municipal Administration enlisted the entitlement of the petitioner herein regarding earned leave, 50% back wages under Rule 114 for the period of 03.03.2002 to 21.05.2002, while for the period 22.5.2002 to 11.10.2006 under Rule 106A of the KCSR, it was directed that the same shall be without back wages.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inspite of the specific order being passed by the Municipal Administration and several representations having been given by the petitioner, the respondent Town Municipality has not complied with the directions given by the Director of Municipal Administration with regard to the payment of back wages and earned leave encashment for which the petitioner was entitled to.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent Town Municipality submits that the order dated 07.08.2008 is not very clear as regard the consequential benefits to be made to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the Director of Municipal Administration has only enlisted the three points but has specifically not directed the municipality to make the payment. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has not made a representation to the Town Municipality, but has made a representation to the Director of Municipal Administration.
5. Having heard the learned counsels and having perused the writ papers, it is clear that in the order dated 07.08.2008, the director of Municipal Administration has clearly held that the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner was set aside by warning the petitioner. The Director of Municipal Administration has further clearly mentioned three points with reference to the Rules and the entitlement of the petitioner herein. The Director of Municipal Administration has clearly held that under Rule 111 of the KCSR, the petitioner was entitled for 75 days of eared leave for the period 18.12.2001 to 02.03.2002; he was entitled for 50% back wages for 80 days under Rule 114 of KCSR for the period 03.03.2002 to 21.05.2002. Therefore, the respondent Town Municipality was bound to pay the petitioner herein in terms of the directions passed by the Director of Municipal Administration.
6. In the light of the above, the petition is allowed.
The respondent No.4 - Town Municipality, Hosadurga is hereby directed to pay the earned leave encashment and 50% of back wages, for the period stated in the order dated 07.08.2008 and mentioned above, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
SD/- JUDGE KLY/