Karnataka High Court
The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Sri K Harischandra on 24 November, 2016
Bench: Chief Justice, R.B Budihal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 24th day of November, 2016
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BUDIHAL R B
Writ Appeal No 3352 of 2016 (S-R)
BETWEEN:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD
REGIONAL OFFICE
NO 2-B, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE
DR P KALINGA RAO ROAD
(MISSION ROAD)
BENGALURU-560 027
BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER ... APPELLANT
[Sri B C Seetharama Rao, Advocate)
AND:
SRI K HARISCHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
S/O SRI K GOPALA RAO
R/AT NO.36/A
II MAIN, III CROSS
"H" BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNANAGAR
MYSURU-570 022 ... RESPONDENT
[Sri A Keshava Bhat, Advocate]
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
2
PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO 2909 OF 2015 DATED
29-06-2016.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The respondent-writ petitioner got employment with the appellant-insurance company. He was appointed as a person belonging to scheduled tribe community. He allegedly belongs to Maaleru caste.
2. There was some confusion as to whether Maleru caste, which is admittedly a schedule tribe, has been in synonymous with Maaleru caste. In this regard, it is submitted, a committee was constituted by the State Government to decide the status of Maaleru and Maleru castes, but the committee has not yet submitted its report.
3. The respondent-writ petitioner joined as an assistant and, ultimately, rose to the position of senior divisional manager. He discharged his duties with 3 sincerity. On his retirement, the appellant-insurance company declined to release the benefits payable to him on his superannuation, on the ground that he obtained the employment on the basis of a false caste certificate.
4. In our view, the Hon'ble Single Judge rightly held that the respondent-writ petitioner did not play any fraud or misrepresentation in getting the employment with the appellant-insurance company. The authorities were in confusion and, therefore, the caste certificate was issued.
5. When there was no fraud practised by the respondent-writ petitioner to secure an unlawful gain, it is not proper to penalize him. Moreover, the respondent- writ petitioner has retired from service. At this stage, he needs financial support and, consequently, the Hon'ble Single Judge directed release of the terminal benefits.
6. We do not find any merit in this appeal. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
4
7. In view of dismissal of the writ appeal, IA-I of 2016 does not survive for consideration and it is, also, dismissed accordingly.
8. We make no order as to costs.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE *pjk