- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37491-DB WA No. 1530 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 1530 OF 2025 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY, M.S. BUILDING 6TH FLOOR, BENGALURU - 01 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE ADDL. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY, M.S. BUILDING 6TH FLOOR, BENGALURU - 01 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION, SAMPIGE ROAD 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM OPP CET, BENGALURU - 560 012. 4. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PRE UNIVERSITY EDUCATION, SAMPIGE ROAD 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM OPP. CET, BENGALURU - 560 012. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA) Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37491-DB WA No. 1530 of 2025 AND: 1. SRI BASALINGAPPA SEVA SAMITI (R) KOLLEGAL, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 440 BY ITS SECRETARY SMT. PREMALATHA K.S. (REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 ) …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.07.2024 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION No. 25677/2023 (EDN-RES) BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND DISMISS THE SAID WRIT PETITION WITH EXEMPLARY COST. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellants [State] have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.25677/2023 (EDN-RES) captioned 'Sri. Basalingappa Seva Samithi (R) v. State of Karnataka and Ors.' - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37491-DB WA No. 1530 of 2025 The said petition was filed by respondent [Basalingappa Seva Samiti (R)], impugning an order dated 28.08.2023 passed by the appellate authority [Appellant No.2], rejecting the revision petition No.21/2023 preferred by the respondent. 2. The respondent had filed the said writ petition challenging the order dated 28.08.2023 passed in Revision Petition bearing R.P.No.21/2023, which was dismissed. The respondent had preferred the said revision petition assailing an order dated 07.11.2022 passed by the Government of Karnataka, once again rejecting the respondent's application for reimbursement of salary to an employee admitted to grant-in-aid. 3. It is material to note that the said order was passed pursuant to an order dated 27.06.2022 passed in Revision Petition No.16/2022. The said petition was in turn preferred against an order dated 29.12.2020, which was passed in Revision Petition No.12/2021. 4. The controversy arising in the appeal falls in a narrow compass. The Government of Karnataka had, in terms of an order dated 30.11.1989, extended a salary grant to twelve (12) staff - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37491-DB WA No. 1530 of 2025 members of the respondent / Institution, including an employee named Shri Rangaswamy R. There were certain allegations against the said employee and therefore, the respondent had withheld the salary payable to Shri Rangaswamy R., for the period from 01.04.1996 to 13.02.2000. Since the salary had been withheld, the State Government had no occasion to pay the grant- in-aid in respect of Shri Rangaswamy R., for the said period. 5. There is no cavil that Shri Rangaswamy R., continued to perform his duties and his attendance was recorded in a separate attendance register. The charges leveled against Shri Rangaswamy R., were enquired into and he was exonerated. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the respondent paid the salary to Shri Rangaswamy R., for the period it was withheld, that is, for the period from 01.04.1996 to 13.02.2000. The respondent's grievance essentially arises on account of the State Government withholding the reimbursement of an amount of ₹4,04,419/- (Rupees four lakhs four thousand four hundred and nineteen only) being the emoluments of Shri Rangaswamy R., for the period from 01.04.1996 to 13.02.2000. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37491-DB WA No. 1530 of 2025 7. The respondent claims that the said amount is payable by the State Government as Shri Rangaswamy R., was admitted to grant-in-aid. However, the State (the appellants) have declined to make any payment against the salary paid to Shri Rangaswamy R., on the ground that the same had been withheld. 8. The learned Single Judge found that the reimbursement in respect of the salary which was paid belatedly to Shri Rangaswamy R., could not be withheld. 9. It is the appellants' case that the respondent is not entitled to grant-in-aid in respect of the said salary, as it had violated Rule 18 of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Rules, 1978, which reads as under: "18. Communication of Orders.- Every order of the Disciplinary Authority or Board of Management imposing any penalty or otherwise affecting his conditions of service to his prejudice, shall be communicated to the employee by the Manager by registered post acknowledgement due, and copy of the order be sent to the prescribed authority at the same time." 10. The learned Single Judge has rightly found that the said rule has no application, as there was no order passed imposing any - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37491-DB WA No. 1530 of 2025 penalty on Shri Rangaswamy R. The opening sentence of Rule 18 as quoted above indicates that it requires every order of the Disciplinary Authority or the Board of Management imposing penalty or affecting the conditions of service to be communicated to the concerned employee. In the present case, there is no order imposing any penalty on Shri Rangaswamy R. 11. However, even if it is accepted – which we do not – that the order withholding the salary was required to be communicated to the Government, the failure to do so, would not absolve the State Government from releasing the grant-in-aid in the present case. We say so for two reasons. First, that there is no cavil that Shri Rangaswamy R., had performed the duties as required of him even during the period for which the salary had been withheld. And second, that the salary payable to Shri Rangaswamy R., has in fact been paid by the respondent. Undisputably grant-in-aid was payable in respect of the salary paid to Shri Rangaswamy R., and therefore, the respondent was entitled for reimbursement of the same. We are also unable to accept that the State Government was not aware that the salary to Shri Rangaswamy R., was withheld, as admittedly, no claim for grant-in-aid in respect of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37491-DB WA No. 1530 of 2025 said salary was made by the respondent during the period for which it was withheld. 12. In view of the above, we find no infirmity with the decision of the learned Single Judge in directing the appellant Nos.3 and 4 to release an amount of ₹4,04,419/- to the respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the said order. 13. The appeal is unmerited and accordingly, dismissed. 14. Pending applications also stand disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE KS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29