- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5413-DB WP No. 105730 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO.105730 OF 2023 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: SRI. K.H. GOWDER S/O. HANUMANTHGOWDA, AGE. 45 YEARS, WORKING AS ARMED POLICE CONSTABLE-305, DAR BAGALKOTE, R/O. DISTRICT ARMED RESERVE HEAD QUARTERS, NAVAGAR, BAGALKOTE-587201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SHARANABASAVARAJ C., ADVOCATE) AND: THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, POLICE DEPARTMENT, BAGALKOTE DISTRICT, BAGALKOTE-587201. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, A. ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.06.2023 IN APPLICATION NO.10673/2022 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI BENCH AT BELAGAVI ANNEXURE-C AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION. B. ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTIONS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO RELEASE THE ARREARS OF SALARY OF THE PETITIONER FOR HIS SERVICE FROM 2004 TO 2011 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECLARATION OF PROBATION OF THE PETITIONER AS ON 27.05.2006 AND ETC., Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5413-DB WP No. 105730 of 2023 THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) The petitioner-an Armed Police Constable of DAR Bagalkot, is before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 26.06.2023 passed in Application No.10673/2022 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Belagavi (for short, ‘the Tribunal), wherein the petitioner’s request to reckon the service from 27.11.2003 for the purpose of seniority and other consequential benefits including direction to release the withheld amount of pay from 10.04.2004 to 27.04.2004 is rejected. 2. Heard Sri. Sharanabasavaraj C., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. G.K.Hiregoudar, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5413-DB WP No. 105730 of 2023 learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. The petitioner an Armed Police constable was discharged from service by order dated 24.09.2004. The said order of discharge was the subject matter of Application No.5612/2004 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by order dated 18.01.2012 allowed the application, set aside the order of discharge dated 24.09.2004 with a further direction that the applicant shall not be entitled for any arrears of salary for the period from the date of discharge till the date of the reporting back to service. The said order was the subject mater of the WP No.65119/2012, before this Court at the instance of the petitioner. 4. This Court by order dated 01.07.2013 dismissed the writ petition confirming the order of the Tribunal. Thereafter, the petitioner again approached the Tribunal in Application No.10673/2022 with a prayer to quash the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5413-DB WP No. 105730 of 2023 order dated 07.08.2021 and 21.09.2021 (Annexures A26 and A27) and also sought for a direction to reckon the applicant’s service from 27.11.2003 for the purpose of seniority, pay fixation, leave, pension etc. and to declare the probation period with reference to his initial entry to service w.e.f. 27.11.2003. The said application came to be dismissed under the impugned order dated 26.06.2003 which is the subject matter of this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner would submit that the petitioner would be entitled for all the benefits consequent to setting aside of the order of discharge dated 24.09.2004 and he further submits that when once the order of discharge is set aside as illegal, the petitioner would automatically entitled for all consequential benefits including arrears of salary. In that regard, he submits that the Tribunal failed to consider the contentions raised by the petitioner and he submits that only on placing reliance on the earlier order passed by the Tribunal as well as the this Court, the Tribunal dismissed - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5413-DB WP No. 105730 of 2023 the application, which is erroneous. However, the learned counsel would submit that the probation period of the petitioner is required to be declared with reference to his initial entry to the service i.e. 27.11.2003 and when the probation is declared as satisfactory, he would be entitled for all consequential benefits, including the salary for the period when he was out of service. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition. 6. Per contra, Sri. G.K.Hiregoudar, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent-State would submit that when once the order passed by the Tribunal in earlier proceedings i.e., Application No.5612/2004 dated 18.01.2012 which is confirmed by this Court in WP No.65119/2012 dated 01.07.2013, the petitioner would not be entitled for more than what is granted in the above order. Thus, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5413-DB WP No. 105730 of 2023 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point that falls for consideration is, “Whether the impugned order of the Tribunal requires interference?” 8. The answer to the above would be in the negative for the following reasons: It is an admitted fact that the petitioner who was appointed as an Armed Police Constable in DAR Bagalkot, was discharged from service on 24.09.2004. The said order of discharge was the subject mater of the Application No. 5612/2004, the Tribunal by its order 18.01.2023 passed the following order:- “ORDER (i) The Application is allowed; (ii) The Order No.Sibbandhi-1/SI.AAR- 118/2004 dated 24.9.2004 (Annexure- A4) passed by Respondent No.1 discharging the Applicant from service during his probation is ordered to be set aside; - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5413-DB WP No. 105730 of 2023 (iii) The Respondents are directed to take the Applicant back to service. However, the Applicant shall not be entitled for any arrears of salary for the period from the date of discharge till the date of his reporting back to the service; (iv) Compliance of this order shall be within two months of receipt of certified copy of this order by the Respondents.” 9. The said order of the Tribunal was the subject matter of WP No.65119/2012 at the instance of the petitioner. This Court by order dated 01.07.2013 while dismissing the writ petition at paragraph 5, observed that, if a person has not worked, he is not entitled to any salary, “no work-no pay”. It also observed that from the material on record, though the petitioner was recruited for the post of Police Constable, he has not discharged the function of a Police Constable for a day as on the date of passing the said order by this Court. As he has not discharged the duties as a Police Constable, this Court observed that the Tribunal was justified in denying - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5413-DB WP No. 105730 of 2023 backwages as he has neither worked as a Police Constable nor as a manual labour. 10. From the perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal, it is seen that the petitioner is granted all consequential benefits such as time bond on completion of 10 years of service and 15 years selection time scale. Further, the petitioner was also promoted to the higher cadre on 02.06.2022 with retrospective effect. He was also continued in old pension scheme. The only benefit which is not given to the petitioner is salary for the period during which he was out of service. The tribunal while setting aside the order of discharge has made it clear that the applicant would not be entitled for any arrears of salary which order has become final under order dated 01.07.2013 in WP No.65119/2012. The petitioner has not taken the matter further. As such, the petitioner would not be entitled for any arrears of salary during the period for which he was out of service. There is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5413-DB WP No. 105730 of 2023 However, is refrain from imposing any cost since the petitioner is working as Police Constable, lowest cadre post in the Police Department. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE Vmb List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7