- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38278-DB WP No. 24264 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 24264 OF 2021 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SAYEEDA TASMIYA TARANNUM, W/O SRI MOHAMMEDSA MULLA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DEPARTMENT OF MINORITY, V. V. TOWER, 21ST FLOOR, BENGALURU-560001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VIJAYA RAGHAVA SARATHY H. M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MINORTIES WELFARE, HAJJ AND WAKF, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINORITIES WELFARE, V. V. TOWER, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001 Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38278-DB WP No. 24264 of 2021 3. THE UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MINORITIES WELFARE, HAJJ AND WAQG, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 4. SRI SYED MANSUR BASHA, S/O BASHEER SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS JOINT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MINORITIES WELFARE, DEPARTMENT OF MINORITIES, V. V. TOWER, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. R/AT C/O SHANTHI R, No.27, 3RD CROSS, HENNUR CROSS, HENNUR MAIN ROAD, KALYANA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560043. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI NARASIMHARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN A.No.4916/2021 DATED 03.12.2021 (ANNEXURE-A). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38278-DB WP No. 24264 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner, who was respondent No.4 before the Tribunal, is before this Court aggrieved by order dated 03.12.2021 in Application No.4916/2021, whereunder the Tribunal had passed the following order; "1. The application is dismissed to the extent the impugned order dated 01-10-2021 rescinds the appointment of the applicant to the post of Joint Director in the Department of Minorities Welfare. 2. The applicant shall stand reverted to the post / position prevailing prior to his placement in incharge / independent charge arrangement until the subject matter of his claim for absorption is adjudicated in the common application Α.Νο.4315-4318/2020. 3. The application is allowed to the extent of the posting of the fourth respondent to the post of Joint Director in the Minorities welfare department and the impugned order dated 01-10-2021 is quashed to the extent of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38278-DB WP No. 24264 of 2021 posting of the fourth respondent the post of Joint Director of Minorities welfare department. 4. Since it is stated by the fourth respondent that the fourth respondent has taken charge of the post of Joint Director in the Minorities Welfare department on 01-10-2021, the fourth respondent shall cease to hold charge of the post with immediate effect and all orders or directions or official instructions issued by the said authority shall be null and void and shall be reviewed and considered afresh by the second respondent within one week from the date of this Order and reissued or rescinded by the said authority. The fourth respondent shall not be entitled to pay and allowances for the period when she served in the post since she had no right or locus standi to hold the post of Joint Director in the department." 2. Heard Sri H.M. Vijaya Raghava Sarathy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. B. Sukanya Baliga, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3, Sri Narasimharaju, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and perused the entire writ petition papers. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38278-DB WP No. 24264 of 2021 3. Sri H.M. Vijaya Raghava Sarathy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner would restrict her prayer seeking salary for the period during which she worked in the post of Joint Director of Minority Welfare Department for the period from 01.10.2021 to 03.12.2021. Learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal under impugned order held that the petitioner who was respondent No.4 before the Tribunal could not have held the post of Joint Director of Minority Welfare Department and further held that the petitioner shall not be entitled to pay and allowances for the period when she served in the post since she had no right or locus standi to hold the post of Joint Director in the Department. Learned counsel would further submit that when the petitioner has worked, the Tribunal could not have denied salary for the period during which she had worked in the post. The petitioner would be entitled to the salary for the period during which she had worked and in that regard, learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha v. Dhobei Sahoo and others, (2014)1 SCC 161. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38278-DB WP No. 24264 of 2021 4. Sri Narasimharaju, learned counsel for respondent No.4 would submit that both the petitioner and respondent No.4 herein are working in different places as on this date hence, the prayer of the petitioner has become infructuous. 5. Smt. B. Sukanya Baliga, learned Additional Government Advocate, would submit that the petitioner was not entitled to hold the post of Joint Director of Minority Welfare Department and as such, she would not be entitled for the salary of the said post. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal could not have denied salary to the petitioner for the period during which she worked in the post. The petitioner may not be entitled to hold the post of Joint Director of Department of Minority Welfare, but she would be entitled to the salary of the post which she was substantially holding. The respondent State authorities while posting the petitioner ought to have examined whether the petitioner was entitled to and qualified to hold the post. For the mistake/wrong of the State, petitioner who has worked in the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38278-DB WP No. 24264 of 2021 said post cannot be denied salary. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment referred to supra, at paragraph 51 has held as follows; "51. We may proceed to state that once we have dislodged the decision of the High Court whereby it has opined that the Chairman could not have been allowed to remain in charge of CEO as a logical corollary the direction for recovery gets annulled. But we think it appropriate to add something. Even in a writ of quo warranto while declaring that a person is not eligible to hold the post had rendered service, we are disposed to think, there cannot be recovery of amount. While exercising the power for issue of writ of quo warranto the Court only makes a public declaration that the person holding the public office is a usurper and not eligible to hold the post and after the declaration is made he ceases to hold the office. Till the declaration is made, the incumbent renders service and when he has rendered service he cannot be deprived of his salary. Denial of pay for the service rendered tantamounts to forced labour which is impermissible. When an appointment is admitted and the incumbent functions in the post and neither suspended nor removed from service, he is entitled to get salary, for it is his legal right and it is the duty of the employer to pay it as per the terms and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38278-DB WP No. 24264 of 2021 conditions of the appointment. The matter may be different when someone continues after retirement by a false declaration or misrepresentation. Recovery of salary would amount to deprivation of payment while the incumbent was holding the post and had worked. Asking someone to work and when his appointment is nullified by issue of a writ of quo warranto by the Court, we think that neither the employer can recover the amount nor the Court can direct for recovery of the same. There has to be some other reason for denial of payment, recovery of salary or honorarium." 7. Following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, and as we are of the opinion that the Tribunal ought not have denied the salary to the petitioner for the period she had worked, we pass the following; Order (i) Writ petition stands disposed of. (ii) The portion of the order denying pay and allowances to the petitioner for the period when she served in the post of Joint Director of Minority Welfare Department is quashed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38278-DB WP No. 24264 of 2021 (iii) The petitioner would be entitled to the salary from 01.10.2021 to 03.12.2021 the period during which she had held the post of Joint Director of Minority Welfare Department. (iv) Time for compliance is three months from today. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30