Karnataka High Court
Smt D P Lalithamma vs The Member Secretary on 14 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:33126
WP No. 38049 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 38049 OF 2013 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. D.P. LALITHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
W/O SRI NARAYANA RAIKAR
WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION CLERK
PRIMARY COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND
RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.
CHANNAGIRI ROAD,
BHADRAVATHI, SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.H.HEROOR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MEMBER SECRETARY
COMMON CADRE COMMITTEE FOR PCARD
BANK EMPLOYEES
Digitally O/O THE KARNATAKA STATE COOPERATIVE
signed by AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.
SUMA
Location:
TIPPU SULTHAN PALACE ROAD,
HIGH CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE-560018.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE MANAGER
PRIMARY COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND
RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.
SHIKARIPUR,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577427.
3. THE MANAGER
PRIMARY COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND
RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.
SHRINGERI, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577139.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:33126
WP No. 38049 of 2013
4. THE MANAGER
PRIMARY COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND
RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.
SHIMOGA,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577201.
5. THE MANAGER
THE KARNATAKA STATE COOPERATIVE
AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.
SHIMOGA BRANCH,
NEAR OLD DCC BANK,
SHIMOGA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577201.
6. THE MANAGER
PRIMARY COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND
RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.,
SORABA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577429.
7. THE REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES
NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD
BANGALORE-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA R HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO.LDB:1:DAVE:17:2009-10
DATED 24.12.2011 PASSED BY THE REGISTRAR OF CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-CC AND
ETC.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:33126
WP No. 38049 of 2013
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No. ಎ . . :1: ಾ ೆ:17:2009-10 dated 24.12.2011 passed by the respondent No.7 rejecting a dispute raised under Rule 71 of CCA Rules of Karnataka State Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Limited ('KASCARD Bank'). The petitioner has also sought for a declaration to treat the period of absence from 10.08.2006 to 06.12.2007 as the period of compulsory waiting and to sanction the leave for the period from 14.09.2005 to 02.10.2005, 18.08.2006 to 15.10.2006. Consequently, she has sought for direction to the respondents to release the pay, allowances and leave salary admissible to her. She has also sought for time bound advancement for having completed twenty years of service and to pay arrears of D.A. for the period 01.04.1998 to 09.12.1999.
2. The petitioner contends that while she was working as a Second Division Clerk at Shikaripur Branch, she was -4- NC: 2024:KHC:33126 WP No. 38049 of 2013 transferred to Primary Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank ('PCARD Bank'), Kadur, as per the order dated 12.09.2005 and was relieved from duty on 17.09.2005. The respondent No.1 issued an order dated 01.10.2005 to continue her services at the respondent No.2 and directed the petitioner to report for duty at respondent No.2. She thereafter reported to duty at respondent No.2 on 03.10.2005. The petitioner contends that for the period from 17.09.2005 till 02.10.2005, she was not paid any salary as it had to be treated as compulsory waiting period. The petitioner applied for medical leave for the said period and the Manager of the respondent No.2 recommended to the respondent No.1 to sanction the leave. However, respondent No.1 neither sanctioned the leave for the said period nor issued any endorsement rejecting the request for leave. The Manager of the respondent No.2 addressed a letter dated 06.10.2005 to the respondent No.1 stating that it was not in need of the services of the petitioner. The President and the Manager of the respondent No.2 also issued an endorsement dated 22.10.2005 stating that the services of the petitioner was not required at -5- NC: 2024:KHC:33126 WP No. 38049 of 2013 the respondent No.2. The petitioner therefore, contends that from 01.10.2005 till 22.10.2005, salary was not paid.
3. The respondent No.1 thereafter issued another order dated 26.10.2005 transferring the petitioner to the respondent No.4. However, the President and Secretary of the respondent No.4 addressed a letter to the respondent No.1 that the services of the petitioner was not needed by respondent No.4. The respondent No.4 also issued an endorsement dated 3.11.2005 stating that the services of the petitioner was not required. The petitioner contends that from 22.10.2005 till 06.04.2006, salary was not paid. The petitioner was once again transferred to the respondent No.6 on 07.04.2006. The petitioner reported to duty at respondent No.6 on 15.04.2006. The respondent No.6 issued an endorsement dated 17.04.2006 that the services of the petitioner was not required by it. The petitioner contends that in view of a Circular dated 16.03.2006 issued by respondent No.1, she submitted a letter dated 18.04.2006 and informed the respondent No.1 about her reporting to duty at the respondent No.6 on 18.04.2006. However, even the respondent No.6 did not accept the duty report on 18.04.2006. Again the petitioner reported to duty on -6- NC: 2024:KHC:33126 WP No. 38049 of 2013 29.04.2006 at the respondent No.5, who also did not take her to duty. The petitioner was again transferred on 12.06.2006 to the Shivamogga Branch. The petitioner then reported to duty at the Shivamogga Branch/respondent No.5.
4. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.5 had relieved the petitioner on 09.08.2006 as per the earlier order of transfer dated 22.06.2006 and transferred the petitioner to respondent No.2 and relieved her services on 09.08.2006. The petitioner therefore, reported to duty at respondent No.2 on 10.08.2006. However, the respondent No.2 did not take her to duty. Nonetheless, the petitioner reported to duty again on 11.08.2006 before the respondent No.2 as well as at the office of the respondent No.5 on 17.08.2006.
5. The petitioner contends that in the meanwhile, she fell sick and applied for medical leave from 18.08.2006 to 18.09.2006 and continued her leave from 19.09.2006 to 19.10.2006. These leave letters were addressed to the respondent No.1 as well as respondent No.5. However, respondent No.1 neither sanctioned the leave nor refused it. The petitioner contends that not even an endorsement was -7- NC: 2024:KHC:33126 WP No. 38049 of 2013 issued assigning reasons for not granting leave that the petitioner was entitled to, under Rule 18 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Rules, 1960. The petitioner was thereafter transferred to PCARD Bank, Sringeri on 21.08.2006. However, since the petitioner was on leave, she was unable to report to duty at PCARD Bank, Sringeri. The petitioner represented to the respondent No.1 on 09.09.2006 stating that she was not in a position to report to duty at Sringeri and requested to transfer to any place nearby such as Soraba, Shikaripura, Siddapura or Sagar. however, respondent No.1 did not consider the request of the petitioner.
6. The petitioner contends that under Regulation 64(c) of the Common Cadre Regulations for PCARD Bank as well as Circular No.79/2004--05 dated 16.03.2006, PCARD Bank was not entitled to refuse the "duty report" of any official whenever he/she is posted by respondent No.1. In the event of such refusal, such banks are liable to pay transit period salary, transferred TA bill from the original place to the place of next posting and pay and allowances to be paid treating the period as compulsory waiting till the incumbent reports for the next place of posting. In the event of refusal to pay the above, the -8- NC: 2024:KHC:33126 WP No. 38049 of 2013 Member Secretary of respondent No.1 shall request the Federal Society i.e., respondent No.5 to debit the account of the concerned Primary Bank and credit the same to the fund of the Committee, which would be given to the employee concerned. She further contends that without an order of transfer by the Member Secretary of respondent No.1, no employee can be removed from duty under any circumstance. The petitioner alleges that respondent No.1 and respondent No.5 have not taken any action to settle her claim though as per the Circular dated 16.03.2006, the respondent No.5 is expected to arrange and settle all dues of salary, increment etc., The petitioner alleges that she was transferred indiscriminately from time to time and at all these places, she was never paid salary. She contends that when she was on medical leave, the respondent No.5 did not sanction the leave, which was to her credit and though she was entitled to draw the leave salary in terms of Rule 18 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960. The respondent No.5 has not even recommended to the respondent No.1 for sanction of the leave nor any endorsement is issued rejecting it.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:33126 WP No. 38049 of 2013
7. The petitioner contends that as she was on medical leave from 18.08.2006 to 19.10.2006, she had sought for a transfer to any nearby place. However, the said request was not considered, which forced her to file W.P.No.14053/2006 challenging the order of transfer dated 21.08.2006. This Court granted an interim order staying the order of transfer, if she was not relieved. The petitioner contends that she reported to duty on 16.10.2006 at the respondent No.5 but was not allowed to work. She contends that respondent Nos.1 and 5 have not settled the arrears of pay and allowances including for the period of waiting and the leave salary. She contends that W.P.No.14053/2006 was disposed off on 05.09.2008 directing the respondent No.1 to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner. Following above, respondent No.5 settled a sum of Rs.17,000/- and after deducting LIC, PF, Group Insurance etc., However, the amount for the period 17.09.2005 to 06.12.2007 amounting to Rs.3,79,608/- was not settled. The petitioner contends that respondent No.5 paid a sum of Rs.34,489/- out of Rs.3,79,608/-. Therefore, there is a balance of Rs.3,45,119/-. The petitioner contends that the respondent No.5 has to pay Rs.13,722/- as arrears of salary including D.A.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:33126 WP No. 38049 of 2013 from 01.04.1998 to 12.12.1999 when she was worked at Soraba. The petitioner contends that since the direction in W.P.No.14053/2006 was not complied, she filed Contempt Petition in C.C.C.No.704/2009. In the said contempt petition, the respondents took a contention that payments were made to the petitioner. Consequently, contempt petition was dismissed on 11.01.2010 reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the endorsement issued by the respondents.
8. The petitioner contends that the respondent No.1 without any application of mind had passed an order treating the period from 09.08.2006 to 07.12.2007 as an unauthorized absence. She contends that as per the order of the respondent No.1 transferring the petitioner to Shikaripura PCARD Bank on 10.08.2006, she reported to duty. The Manager of PCARD Bank did not accept her duty report and did not permit her to work. The petitioner therefore, reported to duty at both Shikaripura as well as at respondent No.5. However, none of them allowed the petitioner to work from 10.08.2006 to 06.12.2007. The petitioner contends that this had to be treated as compulsory waiting period, for no fault of her. She contends that under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, a provision is made for
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:33126 WP No. 38049 of 2013 constitution of a Common Cadre Committee for redressal of grievance of the employees serving in the PCARD Bank. She contends that she raised a dispute before the respondent No.7 highlighting her grievance. However, the respondent No.7 held that the dispute cannot be accepted and hence, dismissed it on 24.12.2011.
9. Being aggrieved said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was transferred to PCARD Bank, Kadur on 12.09.2005 and was not permitted to work in any single place from the year 2005 as she was transferred to more than 5 to 6 places in a span of two years. He contends that the petitioner challenged the last order of transfer dated 21.08.2006 before this Court in W.P.No.14053/2006 and obtained an order of stay. Nonetheless, the respondents did not take her to duty though she made a request to transfer to any place. However, she was finally transferred to Koppa on 06.12.2007. He therefore, contends that during these two years, she was not paid the salary and allowances, as she was compelled to wait
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:33126 WP No. 38049 of 2013 for the next order of posting. He contends that even the leave salary on medical leave was not sanctioned and paid. He contends that the period taken for reporting to duty on every transfer should be treated as compulsory waiting. He contends that the period during which, the petitioner did not report to duty was not due to any reason attributable to her but was due to fact that the branches where she was posted, were not accepting her duties. He contends that in the dispute raised before the respondent No.7 under Regulation 71 of the Common Cadre Committee Regulations, the officer was required to redress the grievance of the petitioner. However, the respondent No.7 had rejected the dispute on the ground that the branches of the respondents had not taken the petitioner to duty since she had allegedly not discharged her duties properly. He contends that when she applied for leave from 18.08.2006 to 15.10.2006, she did not obtain sanction from the competent authority though it noticed that she did not report to duty at the respondent No.2 on 10.08.2006 but applied leave upto 15.10.2006. He therefore, contends that the respondent No.7 failed to appreciate the factual aspects of the case. He contends that when the petitioner had reported to
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:33126 WP No. 38049 of 2013 duty and if the branch did not accept her duty, she was expected to submit another duty report to the same branch and report the issue to the District Coordinating Branch to facilitate the District Officer to advise the branch suitably. He contended that though the petitioner had adhered to all the formalities, the authorities concerned did not take her to duty. Hence, he contends that the petitioner is entitled to treat the period from 10.08.2006 to 06.12.2007 as a compulsory waiting period and to sanction the leave for the period 14.09.2005 to 02.10.2005 and 18.08.2006 to 15.10.2006. He therefore, prays that the petition be allowed and the reliefs sought for be granted.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.7 submitted that the branches where the petitioner was transferred were not willing to accept her services in view of her conduct. They submitted that the petitioner had applied for medical leave on 18.08.2006 to 18.09.2006 though she did not suffer from any medical condition. They contend that the period of not reporting to duty cannot be treated as compulsory waiting period and it shall be construed as the period during which she was not on duty and therefore, she was not entitled
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:33126 WP No. 38049 of 2013 to any relief. They contend that the petitioner is entitled to claim salary for work done and not for not doing any work. Nonetheless, they contend that the petitioner was given the arrears as per the direction of this Court in W.P.No.14053/2006. They submit that the petitioner has not placed on record the order passed releasing the arrears. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has placed on record the order dated 03.04.2009 where it was recorded that the petitioner was transferred from KASCARD Bank, Shivamogga on 09.08.2006 to PCARD Bank, Shikaripura. However, she did not report to duty at PCARD Bank. Later, she was transferred to PCARD Bank, Sringeri on 21.08.2006, where too she did not report to duty. She was then transferred to PCARD Bank, Koppa on 07.12.2007 and that she reported to duty at Koppa. He contended that from 10.08.2006 to 06.12.2007, she remained absent. He contended that for the period 03.05.2006 to 11.05.2006 and 13.05.2006 to 29.05.2006, it was treated that she was on leave. He contended that the petitioner was granted the benefit of 11 days of casual leave upto 04.08.2006. However, the period between 10.08.2006 to 06.12.2007 was treated as leave without pay under Regulation 16(d)(6) of
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:33126 WP No. 38049 of 2013 PCARD Bank Employees' Service Regulations. He contends that the petitioner did not produce any documents to establish that she had reported to duty at the places, where she was transferred and hence, is not entitled to any reliefs in this petition.
12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.7.
13. The order dated 03.04.2009 passed by the respondent No.1 shows that the period of absence from duty from 10.08.2006 when she was transferred to Shikaripura to 06.12.2007 when she reported to Koppa was treated as leave without pay as the petitioner did not report at the transferred places of duty. The petitioner has placed on record an order dated 09.08.2006 by which, she was transferred to Shikaripura Branch of the Bank and was relieved on 09.08.2006 itself. Though the petitioner allegedly reported at Shikaripura Branch on 10.08.2006, but her duty report was not accepted. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation on
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:33126 WP No. 38049 of 2013 11.08.2006 stating that she had reported to duty and enclosed therewith a self taking over charge report. The petitioner again reiterated this on 14.08.2006. However, this letter was allegedly acknowledged on 19.08.2006 generating suspicion of its veracity. Following this she allegedly submitted a letter dated 18.08.2006 claiming medical leave for the period 18.08.2006 to 18.09.2006 and enclosed therewith a certificate of a doctor certifying that she had undergone hysterectomy without giving any details about the date of the procedure done on her. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was transferred to Sringeri Branch on 21.08.2006 but nothing is placed on record that she reported to duty at Sringeri. However, she submitted a representation dated 09.09.2006 to the respondent No.1 requesting for transfer to any nearby place at either Soraba, Shikaripura, Siddapura or Sagara. She again made a request before the respondent No.1 on 15.09.2006 for medical leave from 19.09.2006 to 19.10.2006. On 16.10.2006, she submitted a letter to report to duty at Shivamogga Branch by which time, she was already transferred to Sringeri. It is therefore clear that the petitioner did not report to duty at either Shivamogga or Sringeri but continued to dodge reporting to duty. Therefore,
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:33126 WP No. 38049 of 2013 it is evident that the petitioner had procrastinated in reporting to duty citing medical grounds, which was not considered by the sanctioning authority. Nonetheless, without sanction of leave, the petitioner continued to be on leave and did not report to duty at the transferred place. Therefore, the respondent No.1 was justified in treating the period between 10.08.2006 to 06.12.2007 as leave without pay. The respondent No.7 after perusing the records was right in holding that the petitioner was not entitled to salary and other allowances during her period of absence from duty.
14. Hence, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7