AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Syrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the Respondent.
The brief facts are as follow:
The Petitioners are the Management and the Principal of an Engineering College known as Sri. Siddaganga Education Society. The Respondent is stated to have been appointed as a Temporary Lecturer in the Department of Civil Engineering by an appointment order dated 26.6.1984 in the pay scab attached to the post. On 14.12.1984, the same was renewed and he continued to discharge duties as a Lecturer. On 8.2.1986, the Respondent was said to have been interviewed by the Staff Selection Committee for appointment as Lecturer and was found eligible and was selected, but be was continued to be treated as a Temporary Lecturer. The Petitioners thereafter sponsored the name of the Respondent to pursue his Master''s Degree in Engineering in the University, Visveshwaraiah Collage of Engineering, Bangalore since it was a pre-condition that he should possess a Blaster''s Degree in Engineering in order to be appointed as a permanent Lecturer. The Respondent was said to be relieved on 30.9.1986 and was sent to pursue his higher studies at the University, Visweshwaraiah Collage of Engineering, Bangalore. The Respondent and another temporary Lecturer Sri. T.S. Umesha were therefore relieved to pursue their Master''s Degree with effect from 30.9.1986 without any deputation allowance. The Respondent thereafter requested for extension of deputation for a period of six months as per his communication dated 30.3.1988. It was duly considered and the same was granted vide order dated 15.4.1988. The Petitioners thereafter called upon the Respondent to produce the Master''s Degree certificate at the end of the six month period. It was the Petitioners� case that the Respondent had foiled to produce the certificate because he had not completed the Degree by then and on the footing that he had been warned that he should make an appropriate application after completion of his Master''s Degree since he had not completed the same within the time allotted for completion and which was further extended by a period of six months. Sine the Respondent was not ready with the Master''s Degree when called upon and therefore, the question of taking the Respondent on employment as a permanent Lecturer did not arise, hi that circumstance, the Respondent had approached the EAT and the same having been contested by the Petitioners herein, after a full-fledged adjudication, the Tribunal held that since the Appellant had continuously worked from the date of appointment, has should be treated as a permanent employee and directed that the Respondents therein to reinstate the Appellant as Lecturer in Civil Engineering in the Siddaganga Institute of Technology. Tumkur and provide all consequential benefits including monetary benefits likes arrears of salary, allowances etc. That order was challenged by way of a CM Revision Petition before this Court and though there was an order of interim stay for a period of one week, it was not extended. The Civil Revision Petition was pending consideration before thin Court for full period of five years and in the year 2003 it was dismissed as not maintainable. It m thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed.
In the first instance, this Court had directed that the Respondent be reinstated and 50% of the salary be paid horn 10.01.2000'' to 07.01.2005. The Petitioners accordingly deposited 50% of salary, the benefit of which, the Respondent has received. He has also been reinstated into service with effect from 07.01.2005 and is discharging his duties and is receiving his regular salary as per the scale fixed for the said post. This was, however, subject to the result of this writ petition. It is in this background that the petition is heard for final disposal.
At this point of time, the Respondent has filed statement of objections and vehement contested the petition. He would submit that he has the benefit of the orders passed by the Tribunal after a full-fledged adjudication. In that view of the matter, the Petitioners having been directed to reinstate him and provide all consequential benefits including monetary benefits like arrears of salary, allowances to which he m entitled, he is denied of continuous employment The learned Counsel for the Respondent would further submit that though there was a revision petition filed before this Court, there was no order of stay in force. Therefore, far the entire period, that is, from the date the order of stay expired, he would be entitled to the benefit of the judgment of the Tribunal. That having been denied, he would pray that he should get the benefit what is due to him in accordance with law. The Petitioners not having chosen to reinstate him though he is reedy and willing to work, is for no fault of the Respondent and since the denial of the benefit of the judgment of Tribunal would result in grave injustice, he would further submit that the Respondent was neither reinstated nor provided the benefit due to him, he had sought the benefit, of the judgment of the Tribunal, in an appropriate execution proceeding. The same was contested vehemently by the Petitioners and by a considered order, the Executing Court directed the payment of ` 24,80,943/-. That has attained finality and is not the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. Therefore, by virtue of operation of the judgment of the Tribunal and the order passed in execution, he is entitled to the said sum of money legitimately and therefore, re-consideration of what has attained finality, does not arise.
The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the counsel for the Petitioner submits that since the Respondent has already obtained the relief which is not the subject matter of challenge of this Court, the Petitioners are not averse to continue the Respondent in employment to which he has been reinstated and the Petitioners are an Institution which work for charity and is not a profit making institution and therefore, the Respondent having had the benefit of 50% of salary even though he had not worked for the said period and the same having been paid at the instance of this Court would also be to the Respondent''s benefit On the other hand, the Respondent was gainfully employed as a Valuer in an Insurance Company which is not denied and had the benefit of pay and other emoluments. In addition he was running his own consultancy firm under which he was profitably engaged. Therefore, the question of conferring largesse for the period he had not worked would be onerous on the Petitioner - Institution which is a religious and charitable Institution.
The learned Counsel for the Respondent is quick on his feet to assert that the Respondent might have worked as a Valuer for en Insurance Company but it was a paltry sum which he had earned for his survival and the Petitioners not having provided employment by reinstatement, could not except the Respondent to survive on thin air and he has engaged himself for his livelihood. That however ought not to deny his legitimate dues.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the Respondent is right in this aspect that when there are judgments and orders passed in his favour by the Courts of law after a complete adjudication of the rived contentions of the Petitioners and the Respondent, the said judgment and orders not being given effect to, would result in denial of the fruits of the said judgment But however, the fact remains that the Respondent has been reinstated and is discharging duties and has been receiving salary due to the post, apart from other benefits that he is entitled to, while keeping in view the fact that though there is a direction to reinstate the Respondent, the Petitioners have not chosen to do so in the expectation that the present proceedings and prior to this, the revision petition would be decided in their favour and having allowed the matters to remain in a state of flux could not be mulcted with the payment of such benefits that would be legitimately due to the Respondent to their detriment* In order to balance the equities in so far as the Petitioners and Respondent are concerned, the fact that he has received 50% of the salary for a certain period, in a substantial sum of ` 4,07,286/- and the Respondent also having been reinstated, the amounts that may be due to him can only be treated as compensation and net necessarily computed to the rupee, to ensure that he gate the entire salary and the benefits that may be due to him. Since the Petitioners have also conferred the regular pay scale attached to the post and since his service would be necessarily taken into consideration for the purpose of computing his pension and pay fixation, it is for this Court to consider whether the compensation payable to the Respondent could be restricted to the amount which he has already withdrawn after the same was deposited by the Petitioners.
In the opinion of this Court, it would be sufficient to subject the Petitioners to pay a further sum of ` 1,00,000/- in favour of the Respondent with the next two months salary in installments of ` 50,000/- each, in addition to the salary, It is made clear that the Petitioners shall take into account the Respondent''s period of service from the date he obtained the Master''s Degree certificate viz. September 1990 for the purpose of pay fixation and other service benefits.
The writ petition stands allowed with the above modification to the judgment of the Tribunal and the order passed in execution proceedings.