MANAGEMENT OF SRI. SIDDAGANGA EDUCATION SOC. (R) BY ITS SECRETARY SRI T.K. NANJUNDAPPA AND THE PRINCIPAL SRI. M.N. CHANNABASAPPA, SRI. SIDDAGANGA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Vs. SRI. G.S. SHASHIDAR B. S/O SRI. G.S. SADASHIVAIAH, LECTURER IN CIVIL EN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the Respondent.

(2.) THE brief facts are as follow: The Petitioners are the Management and the Principal of an Engineering College known as Sri. Siddaganga Education Society. The Respondent is stated to have been appointed as a Temporary Lecturer in the Department of Civil Engineering by an appointment order dated 26.6.1984 in the pay scab attached to the post. On 14.12.1984, the same was renewed and he continued to discharge duties as a Lecturer. On 8.2.1986, the Respondent was said to have been interviewed by the Staff Selection Committee for appointment as Lecturer and was found eligible and was selected, but be was continued to be treated as a Temporary Lecturer. The Petitioners thereafter sponsored the name of the Respondent to pursue his Master's Degree in Engineering in the University, Visveshwaraiah Collage of Engineering, Bangalore since it was a pre -condition that he should possess a Blaster's Degree in Engineering in order to be appointed as a permanent Lecturer. The Respondent was said to be relieved on 30.9.1986 and was sent to pursue his higher studies at the University, Visweshwaraiah Collage of Engineering, Bangalore. The Respondent and another temporary Lecturer Sri. T.S. Umesha were therefore relieved to pursue their Master's Degree with effect from 30.9.1986 without any deputation allowance. The Respondent thereafter requested for extension of deputation for a period of six months as per his communication dated 30.3.1988. It was duly considered and the same was granted vide order dated 15.4.1988. The Petitioners thereafter called upon the Respondent to produce the Master's Degree certificate at the end of the six month period. It was the Petitioners ™ case that the Respondent had foiled to produce the certificate because he had not completed the Degree by then and on the footing that he had been warned that he should make an appropriate application after completion of his Master's Degree since he had not completed the same within the time allotted for completion and which was further extended by a period of six months. Sine the Respondent was not ready with the Master's Degree when called upon and therefore, the question of taking the Respondent on employment as a permanent Lecturer did not arise, hi that circumstance, the Respondent had approached the EAT and the same having been contested by the Petitioners herein, after a full -fledged adjudication, the Tribunal held that since the Appellant had continuously worked from the date of appointment, has should be treated as a permanent employee and directed that the Respondents therein to reinstate the Appellant as Lecturer in Civil Engineering in the Siddaganga Institute of Technology. Tumkur and provide all consequential benefits including monetary benefits likes arrears of salary, allowances etc. That order was challenged by way of a CM Revision Petition before this Court and though there was an order of interim stay for a period of one week, it was not extended. The Civil Revision Petition was pending consideration before thin Court for full period of five years and in the year 2003 it was dismissed as not maintainable. It m thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) AT this point of time, the Respondent has filed statement of objections and vehement contested the petition. He would submit that he has the benefit of the orders passed by the Tribunal after a full -fledged adjudication. In that view of the matter, the Petitioners having been directed to reinstate him and provide all consequential benefits including monetary benefits like arrears of salary, allowances to which he m entitled, he is denied of continuous employment The learned Counsel for the Respondent would further submit that though there was a revision petition filed before this Court, there was no order of stay in force. Therefore, far the entire period, that is, from the date the order of stay expired, he would be entitled to the benefit of the judgment of the Tribunal. That having been denied, he would pray that he should get the benefit what is due to him in accordance with law. The Petitioners not having chosen to reinstate him though he is reedy and willing to work, is for no fault of the Respondent and since the denial of the benefit of the judgment of Tribunal would result in grave injustice, he would further submit that the Respondent was neither reinstated nor provided the benefit due to him, he had sought the benefit, of the judgment of the Tribunal, in an appropriate execution proceeding. The same was contested vehemently by the Petitioners and by a considered order, the Executing Court directed the payment of Rs. 24,80,943/ -. That has attained finality and is not the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. Therefore, by virtue of operation of the judgment of the Tribunal and the order passed in execution, he is entitled to the said sum of money legitimately and therefore, re -consideration of what has attained finality, does not arise.