Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 1059 (KAR)

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SRI ESWARAPPA M

WA/433/2025 · 2026-04-06

C M Poonacha

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18663-DB WA No. 433 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 433 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, KOUSHALYA BHAVAN, NEAR DAIRY CIRCLE, BANNERGATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560029. 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, KOUSHALYA BHAVAN, NEAR DAIRY CIRCLE, BANNERGATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560029. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.S HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VEERENDRA KUMAR K M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18663-DB WA No. 433 of 2025 AND: 1. SRI. ESWARAPPA M S/O LATE M KALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RETD. AS TRAINING OFFICER, TMAES INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 301 2. THE SECRETARY, SRI TEGGINAMATH ARTS AND EDUCATION SOCIETY HARAPANAHALLI, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT - 583 131 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BABU RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN WP NO.19663/2023, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01/04/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.19663/2023 AND ETC. 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. POONACHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18663-DB WA No. 433 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the application, I.A No.1/2025, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 01.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.19663 of 2023 (S-RES). 3. The said petition was filed by respondent No.1 inter alia impugning an endorsement dated 03.06.2023. 4. In terms of the said endorsement, the disbursement of retirement financial benefits to the writ petitioner were to be withheld pending recovery of an amount of `19,72,755/- from respondent No.2 (the Management). 5. The controversy arises in the context of the writ petitioner being transferred from a grant-in-aid post to a non-grant-in aid post. The transfer was approved by the concerned authorities and the Court found that it was not only on account of the petitioners' - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18663-DB WA No. 433 of 2025 request but also on account of shortage of staff at Hospete where he was transferred. 6. The learned Single Judge inter alia set aside the endorsement dated 03.06.2023 and had directed disbursal of retirement benefits. 7. This Court is informed that the Management did not contest the writ petition and remained unrepresented. 8. None has appeared on behalf of the Management (respondent No.2 despite service of notice in this appeal as well. 9. The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that since the Government has made the payments to the writ petitioner in respect of a post which was not a grant-in-aid post, it has a right to recover the same from the Management. He further submits that some of the findings in the impugned order may prejudice the appellants from pursuing their claim against the Management. 10. In view of the above, we clarify that the appellants would not be precluded from initiating any proceedings, from recovering any amount that, according to the appellants, is due from the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18663-DB WA No. 433 of 2025 Management. All rights and contentions of the appellants as well as the present Management [respondent No.2] are reserved in this regard. 11. However, we further clarify that this order will not be construed as enabling either of the parties to initiate any proceedings for recovery of any amount from the writ petitioner [respondent No.1]. 12. The present appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. 13. All pending applications are also disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE Vmb List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8