- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34250 WP No. 62968 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 62968 OF 2016 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. C. GOPALAPPA S/O. LATE CHIKKAHANUMANTHAPPA @ CHIKKAHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS #479, III "A" CROSS, II BLOCK III PHASE, BSK III STAGE BENGALURU-560 085. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KRISHNAPPA M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT A PSU, WHOLLY OWNED BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA REGISTERED OFFICE AT ORIENTAL HOUSE A-25/27, ASIF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 002. REP BY R2 & R3 HEREIN BELOW 2. SRI PRABODH CHANDRA HOTA THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED REGIONAL OFFICE NO.44/45 RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS BENGALURU-560 025. 3. SRI SUJAY BANARJI (OFFICIATING) THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED REGISTERED OFFICE AT ORIENTAL HOUSE Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34250 WP No. 62968 of 2016 A-25/27, ASIF ALI ROAD NEW DELHI-110 002, THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER REGULATION. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.RAVINDRANATH K, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER/LETTER DATED:9.7.2015 SIGNED AND ISSUED BY R-2 ON BEHALF OF THE R-1 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-P AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 09.07.2015 (Annexure-P), issued by the second respondent, whereby back wages of the petitioner from the date of dismissal, i.e., 11.07.2007 till the date of superannuation, i.e., on 31.07.2014 has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the service of the respondent – Company as an Assistant Typist in Mysure Division. Thereafter, he was - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34250 WP No. 62968 of 2016 promoted as Assistant Manager. When he was working as Assistant Manager, the respondent has initiated a departmental enquiry and by order dated 11.07.2007 removed the petitioner from the service. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.12447/2008. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 14.09.2009 allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and directed the respondents to continue the services of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondents have filed an appeal before a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.3823-3824/2009, which came to be dismissed on 11.04.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review petition before the Division Bench in R.P.Nos.386/2014 and 539/2014. The review petitions also came to be dismissed. In the meanwhile, the respondents approached the Apex Court by filing SLP Nos.17903-904/2014. The same came to be dismissed on 17.11.2014. In the meantime, the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34250 WP No. 62968 of 2016 31.07.2014. Thereafter, his retirement benefits have been settled, excluding the back wages during the period from 11.07.2007 till 31.07.2014. Hence, the petitioner submitted a representation on 20.03.2015. On the representation submitted by the petitioner, the impugned order dated 09.07.2015 vide Annexure-P has been issued. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this court. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the following contentions: (i) Firstly, the petitioner has been removed from service by order dated 11.07.2007. Petitioner has challenged that order before this Court in WP No. 12447/2008. This Court, by order dated 14.09.2009 allowed the said writ petition. The impugned order of removal of the petitioner from service and the appellate authority’s order have been quashed and the second respondent was directed to continue the petitioner in the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34250 WP No. 62968 of 2016 service. The order passed by this Court in WP No.12447/2008 was not complied. Hence, the petitioner has filed a contempt petition in CCC No.1093/2014. The second respondent filed an affidavit that they will comply with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. On that ground, the contempt has been dropped. Thereafter, since they have not complied with that order, the petitioner filed one more contempt petition in CCC No. 3/2015. In the said contempt petition, the contempt Court disposed of the matter holding that notwithstanding the fact that he has reached the age of superannuation, he shall be treated as having been continued in the service till that time and he is entitled to all the monetary benefits. Even thereafter, the order passed by the learned Single Judge has been confirmed by the Apex Court. The respondents, without granting the back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of superannuation and contrary to the directions issued by this Court, issued the impugned endorsement. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34250 WP No. 62968 of 2016 (ii) Secondly, in similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1141/2012 disposed of on 30.10.2019 directed the respondent - Management to pay the back wages. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents raised the following contentions: (i) Firstly, the learned Single Judge, in WP No.12447/2008 disposed of on 14.09.2009, has only directed to continue the service of the petitioner and shall not enable him to take advantage of the caste as a Kuruba candidate and for all purposes, he shall be treated as a general merit candidate. There was no order for back wages. (ii) Secondly, being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the respondents filed W.A.Nos.3823-3824/2009 before a Division Bench of this Court and obtained an interim order, staying the order of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34250 WP No. 62968 of 2016 the learned Single Judge. After dismissal of the writ appeals on 11.04.2014, they approached the Apex Court by filing SLP Nos.17903-904/2014. The same came to be dismissed on 17.11.2014. By that time, the petitioner had attained superannuation. Therefore, the question of continuing his service would not arise and he is not entitled for any monetary benefit. In support of his contention, he has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF BIHAR vs. KRIPA NAND SINGH reported in AIR 2014 SC 3653 and contended that, ‘no work, no pay’. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers. 6. It is not in dispute that when the petitioner was working as Assistant Manager in the respondent - Company, a departmental enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner. After conducting the enquiry, the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34250 WP No. 62968 of 2016 disciplinary authority, by order dated 11.07.2007 dismissed the petitioner from the service. The same has been challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority confirmed that order, by order dated 11.07.2008. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court in WP No.12447/2008. This Court, by order dated 14.09.2009 allowed the writ petition. The operative portion of the order reads as follows: “Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Annexure-A and B are quashed. The petitioner shall be continued in services while he shall not be enabled to take any advantage of his caste as Kuruba candidate and for all purposes shall be treated as a General Merit candidate.” 7. In the above order, it is very clear that the learned Single Judge has directed the respondents to continue the services of the petitioner. Thereafter, after 40 days of that order, the respondent – Management filed appeals before - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34250 WP No. 62968 of 2016 this Court in W.A.Nos.3823-3824/2009. A Division Bench of this Court has granted stay in the said writ appeals. Thereafter, the writ appeals came to be dismissed by order dated 11.04.2014. Thereafter, the respondent - Management also filed RP Nos.386/2014 and 539/2014. The same came to be dismissed on 29.10.2014. Even though there is a specific direction from the learned Single Judge to continue the services of the petitioner, the respondents have not reinstated the petitioner into the service. Inspite of the petitioner submitting repeated representations the respondents have not considered the same. Therefore, the petitioner filed CCC No.1093/2014. In the meantime, the respondents have filed SLP Nos.17903-904/2014 before the Apex Court. The same came to be dismissed. 8. The Contempt Court disposed of CCC No.1093/ 2014 on 05.12.2014, taking note of the statement made in the affidavit filed by the accused/second respondent herein, granting two weeks time to comply with the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34250 WP No. 62968 of 2016 directions of this Court. In spite filing an undertaking before this Court in the contempt petition, the respondents have not complied the order passed by this Court. Therefore, the petitioner has filed one more contempt petition in CCC No.3/2015. This Court disposed of the said contempt petition on 06.03.2015, with the following observation: “2. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is to the effect that the petitioner shall be continued in services while he shall not be enabled to take any advantage of his caste as Kuruba candidate and for all purposes shall be treated as a General Merit Candidate. The effect of this order is, the order of termination, which was passed was quashed i.e., he is continued in service. By the time, the matter reached the Supreme Court and an interim order came to be passed by the Apex Court to obey these orders, the complainant had reached the age of superannuation. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that he has reached the age of superannuation, he shall be treated as having continued in service till that time and he is entitled to all mandatory benefits. But he is not entitled to reinstatement after reaching the age of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34250 WP No. 62968 of 2016 superannuation. Therefore, this contempt petition has become infructuous. Hence, the contempt proceedings are dropped. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to claim the entire mandatory benefits to which he is entitled to, under the aforesaid orders passed by this Court.” 9. From the order of this Court in the writ petition as well as in the contempt petition, it is very clear that the Court has directed the respondents to continue the services and also directed to pay the back wages. It is very clear from the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.12447/2008, that the respondents have been directed to continue the services of the petitioner. In spite of the petitioner submitting repeated representations, the petitioner has not been taken into the service. Even though the respondents have filed an appeal, there is no bar for the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service from the date the learned Single Judge has passed the order i.e. on 14.09.2009. From that date, till the petitioner retired from the service, he has not - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34250 WP No. 62968 of 2016 been allowed to work. It is not because of the fault of the petitioner. It is the respondent who has not allowed the petitioner to work. Therefore, from the date the order passed by this Court on 14.09.2009 till he retired from the service, the petitioner is entitled to the monetary benefit. A Division Bench of this Court in similar circumstances in W.A.No.1141/2012 disposed of on 30.10.2019, held as follows: “8. That when the direction was issued by the learned Single Judge, the said order became operative and the appellant was entitled to reinstatement by the Company. However, the respondent obtained an interim order of stay in the Division bench unconditionally and subsequently, the said writ appeal came to be dismissed. Though the appellant was entitled for reinstatement within four weeks from the date of passing the order in the writ appeal, the respondent did not comply with the order passed by the learned Single Judge only on the ground that the order passed by the learned Single Judge was stayed by the Division Bench and only after disposal of the Special Leave Petition, the Company has complied the order of the learned - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34250 WP No. 62968 of 2016 Single Judge and reinstated the appellant-employee into service and paid back wages. When the Company did not comply with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant is entitled for full back wages from February 2003 to September 2005. The order of the learned Single Judge will come into operation from the date of passing the order. Hence, the appellant is entitled for 100% back wages from 2003 till he has been reinstated as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.L.BOSE AND CO., PRIVATE LTD., CALCUTTA – vs. EMPLOYEES reported in AIR 1961 SC 1198, the relevant portion is extracted below : “8. The award has directed that 1/3 of the total emoluments should be paid to the workmen for the period from the date of dismissal till reinstatement; that was because it appeared to the Tribunal that the workmen had earned from time to time by different work. Mr Sanyal has suggested that we should direct a similar payment at a similar reduced rate from the date of the award until the date of reinstatement. We do not propose to make such an order. After the award became operative the workmen were entitled to reinstatement by the appellant, but the appellant obtained an order for stay from this Court unconditionally. In such a case we do not see any reason for depriving the workmen of their full wages from the date the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34250 WP No. 62968 of 2016 award became operative to the date of their reinstatement.” 9. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court it is apparent that even if the respondent has obtained stay, the right of the appellant cannot be deprived of in regard to full wages from the date of the order of the learned Single Judge dt.7.1.2003 which became operative.” 10. In the judgment which is relied upon by the respondents, it is a well settled law that ‘no work, no pay’, but there is some exception. It is all depending upon the facts of each case. In the case on hand, it is the petitioner who has given representations to take him to duty, the respondents have not allowed the petitioner to work. Because of the respondents not reinstating the petitioner into service, the petitioner has not worked from the date of the order passed by the learned Single Judge till his retirement. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, the endorsement issued by the respondents is liable to be quashed. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34250 WP No. 62968 of 2016 11. In view of the above, the following order is passed: (i) The writ petition is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned endorsement dated 09.07.2015 vide Annexure-P is quashed. (iii) The petitioner is entitled to the monetary benefits from the date of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.12447/2009 dated 14.09.2009 till he attains the age of superannuation, i.e, on 31.07.2014. (iv) The respondents are directed to pay the same as expeditiously as possible, not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (v) If the amount is not paid within three months as stated above, the respondents are - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34250 WP No. 62968 of 2016 liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. till the date of payment. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 64