LexCOMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD versus C.MUDDAIAH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD v. C.MUDDAIAH SEPTEMBER 7, 2007 B (C.K. THAKKERANDD.K.JAIN,JJ.J Service Law: Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation and Promotion, Pay and C Pension) Act, 1973: Seniority and promotion-Seniority list-Challenged by respondent- employee-Seniority granted and promotion given by the employer with retrospective effect-Payment of consequential benefits-Denial of-Held: Incumbent-employee granted seniority over other candidates and other D consequential benefits in terms of order of the Single Judge of the High Court, as. affirmed by Division Bench of the High court and also by the Supreme Court-Thus, order passed by the Single Judge of the High cpurt aiiained finality and binding between the parties-Employer was under obligation to comply with the directions in terms of such order-Direction E to grant consequential benefits consequent upon reassigning seniority to the incumbent was express and unequivocal-Under the circumstances, it is not open to employer not to comply with the directions on the ground no such directions could be issued in terms of provisions under 1973 Act-Once a direction is issued by a competent Court, it has to be obeyed and implemented without any reservation-Non-compliance of such order would result in F ending Rule of Law-Only remedy available to aggrieved party in such circumstances is to challenge the order by initiating appropriate proceedings in the Court of Law-But, it cannot be ignored on a spacious plea that no such directions could have been issued by the Court-Courts generally issue appropriate directions in terms of the provisions of law but, in the giver. G circumstances, as in the present case, they could also issue appropriate directions in the larger interest of justice following the principles of justice, equity and good conscience-Administrative Law-Rule of Law-Judgment/ order-Non-compliance-Affect of Respondent joined as Second Division Assistant in Karnataka Housing H 784 COMMR.KARNA TAKAHOUSINGBOARDv. C.MUDDAIAH 785 ;.( Board in the year 1972 and was promoted as First Division Assistant on A February 15, 1972. Respondent challenged before the High Court the seniority list of First Division Assistants as issued by the Board, which was allowed by a Single Judge of the High Court directing the Board to reassign seniority to the respondent by placing him above respondent Nos. 2 to 34 and to grant him 'other consequential benefits'. Writ Appeal filed by the State B was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Special Leave Petition filed by the appellant before this Court was dismissed by the Court. Since consequential benefits were not extended to him by the Board, he filed a -~ Contempt Petition, which was dismissed by the High Court. Later, he filed a contempt petition, which was also dismissed by the High Court. Thereafter, a substantive petition was filed by him after his retirement from service c contending that arrears of salary to whieh he was entitled, was not paid by the Board. The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition. Aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal, which was allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Hence the present appeal. Appellant-employer contended that it was the case of the respondent that D the appellant-Board had committed contempt since the order passed by the High Court had not been complied with; that since the contempt petitions were dismissed, it is not open to the respondent to contend that there was non- compliance of the order passed by the Court; that a fresh petition for such relief was not maintainable; that the Single Judge of the High Court was wholly E justified in dismissing the second petition filed by the respondent in view of dismissal of contempt petitions; and that the Division Bench of the High Court was in error in setting aside the order of Single Judge allowing the appeal. Respondent-employee submitted that it was not open to the Board not to \ pay arrears as accrued to him due to consequential benefits in terms of the F directions of this Court on the ground that such payment was not envisaged by law; that once an order is passed by a competent court, it has to be implemented. Dismissing the appeal, the Court G HELD:l.1. The decision of the Single Judge of the High Court was challenged by the Board by filing intra court appeal, which was dismissed by -1... the Division Bench of t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.