No ground for writ interference arose where the tribunal followed an earlier dismissal requested by the applicants.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the KSAT’s dismissal of the petitioners’ applications warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227, given their claim that similarly placed applicants had obtained relief.

The court held

The writ petition was dismissed, and the KSAT’s order dated 6 July 2022 was left undisturbed.

It also directed

The Court reserved liberty to the petitioners to apply for payment of gratuity.

01Facts

The petitioners, retired employees who had initially worked on a daily-wage basis, sought before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) a direction to count their service from initial appointment through retirement and extend consequential benefits, relying on Netram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh.

p. 4

The KSAT dismissed their applications on 6 July 2022, after counsel sought disposal in terms of an earlier KSAT order dismissing similar applications.

p. 4 · p. 6

The petitioners challenged that dismissal under Articles 226 and 227, contending that the KSAT had allowed applications by similarly placed persons.

p. 5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the KSAT’s dismissal of the petitioners’ applications warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227, given their claim that similarly placed applicants had obtained relief.

p. 5 · p. 6 · p. 7

ii.2. Whether the petitioners were entitled in this writ petition to a direction counting their daily-wage service and granting consequential benefits up to retirement.

p. 4

03Law Applied

The Court considered its supervisory and writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

p. 3

The petitioners relied on Netram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, Civil Appeal No. 1254 of 2018, as the basis for their claim to service-related benefits; however, the Court did not determine the applicability or merits of that precedent.

p. 4

It treated the KSAT’s decision as based on the course sought by the petitioners’ counsel and found no ground to entertain the writ petition.

p. 6 · p. 7

04Reasoning

The Court noted that counsel before the KSAT had requested disposal in terms of an earlier order dismissing similar applications.

p. 6

That earlier KSAT order had itself been challenged in W.P. No. 202351 of 2022, which the High Court dismissed on the same day.

p. 6

In these circumstances, and because the impugned KSAT order followed the petitioners’ counsel’s submission, the Court found no ground for writ interference.

p. 6 · p. 7

It did not independently adjudicate the petitioners’ substantive claim under Netram Sahu.

p. 6 · p. 7