SRI G.S. SHASHIDHAR S/O G.S. SADASHIVAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS CIVIL ENGINEER, SRI. SIDDAGANGA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, TUMKUR Vs. THE MANAGEMENT OF SRI SIDDAGANGA EDUCATION SOCIETY (R) BY ITS SECRETARY SRI T.K. NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS SIDDAGANGA MATH TUMKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against order dated 11.03.2011 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 16266/2004 insofar as it relates to modifying the order of the Tribunal with regard to entitlement of the hack wages for the period during which, the appellant remained out of service.

(2.) The short facts of the case appears to be that the appellant was appointed as a Lecturer on temporary basis in the Department of Civil Engineering vide appointment order dated 26.06.1984 in the pay scale attached to the post. The appointment of the appellant was renewed from time to time. As per the appellant, he was interviewed by the Staff Selection Committee and he was duly selected. As per the appellant, he pursued Master Degree and after completion of the Master Degree, he approached the respondent - Society for resumption of duty, but the respondent ultimately, vide order dated 07.11.1988 conveyed to the appellant that his request to take him back on duty cannot be considered. The appellant approached the Educational Appellate Tribunal by preferring the appeal in M.A.(EAT) No. 2/1989 and the Tribunal ultimately vide order dated 17.02.1999, set aside the endorsement issued by the first respondent -Management and further directed the respondents therein to reinstate the appellant within a period of fifteen days from the date of the order and it also directed for payment of all consequential benefits including monetary benefits like arrears of salary, allowances etc., to which the appellant was entitled to. It appears that against the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, the respondent initially preferred civil revision petition, which remained pending for a period of about five years and no orders were passed. Thereafter, since the civil revision petition was not maintainable, if was withdrawn with a view to file writ petition. Under the circumstances, the respondents herein preferred Writ Petition No. 16266/2004 before this Court. In the said writ petition, the learned single Judge ultimately passed the impugned order. Under the circumstances, the present appeal before this Court.

(3.) We have heard Mr. V.S. Naik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. M. Shivappa, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 1. Respondent No.2 is served but none appears on his behalf.