- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11642 WP No. 1721 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 1721 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: PARAMESHA D. N., S/O. NIRVANI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS HEADMASTER, S.RAMAKRISHNA MEMORIAL KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, 23RD CROSS, MARUTHINAGAR, YELHANKA, BANGALORE-560 064. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAHUL S. REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PRIMARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, MULTISTORIED BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. 3. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, BANGALORE NORTH, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064. BANGALORE EDUCATION TRUST, NO. 286, 23RD CROSS, MARUTI NAGAR, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU- 560 064. Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11642 WP No. 1721 of 2025 REP. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. KRISHNAREDDY H.R., ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE SALARY OF THE PETITIONER. 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 sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to pay his salary. 2. He contends that he was appointed as an assistant teacher at S.Ramakrishna Memorial Kannada Higher Primary School, Maruthinagar, Yelahanka on 16.10.2000. He was thereafter promoted and posted as Head master at the same school in the year 2014. The said school was admitted to salary grant which included the petitioner. The petitioner contends that there was a dispute between the trustees of the trust which was running the educational institution resulting in stoppage of salary for 3 teachers namely Smt.Yashoda, Smt.Annapoornamma and Sri.Nagendra Rao. The said persons - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11642 WP No. 1721 of 2025 submitted representation before the State Government following which they filed W.P.No.4338/2024. The Government advocate who represented the respondents in the said writ petition submitted that the salary was already paid. Therefore, based on the said submission, the writ petition was dismissed. 3. The petitioner contends that a managing trustee of the trust filed O.S.No.181/2023 against another person who claimed to be managing trustee as well as the petitioner herein for perpetual injunction. The trial Court after considering the application, granted an order of injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering or in any way disturbing the administration of the trust and the enjoyment of the suit property by the trust. However, the petitioner was permitted to attend the classes to teach the students. The petitioner contends that he has been attending the school and teaching the students from time to time. However, he is not paid the salary. The petitioner is therefore, before this Court seeking for a direction to respondent No.2 to pay salary to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the above contentions and submits that there is no justification for the respondents in not paying the salary to the petitioner. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11642 WP No. 1721 of 2025 5. Learned AGA who represents respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the management had accused the petitioner of misappropriating the fee of Rs.4,00,000/- collected from the students and the cost of uniform. He therefore, contends that there is a tiff between the petitioner and respondent No.3 which has resulted in a face off. Therefore, the salary of the petitioner is not paid. 6. If the appointment of the petitioner is admitted to salary grant by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and so long as there are no departmental enquiries initiated against the petitioner and if the petitioner has been attending the classes, there is no reason why the respondent Nos.1 and 2 can deny the salary payable to the petitioner. If there are any issues between the petitioner and respondent No.3, it has to work out the same in accordance with law. Unless there are disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, the respondent No.3 cannot come in the way of salary being paid to the petitioner. 7. In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to pay the salary payable to the petitioner including all arrears of salary. The respondent No.3 shall forward any proposal if required for the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11642 WP No. 1721 of 2025 aforesaid purpose. This shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In order to ensure compliance of the above order, list this petition on 21.04.2025. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE NS CT: TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16