1. : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH R DATED THIS THE23D DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2016 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.107559 /2014 (S-RES) BETWEEN N REKHA D/O S K NAGAPPA W/O. H VEERANNA, AGE:
38. YEARS, OCC: SDA/ TYPIST IN POLITICAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENT, KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY DHARWAD. (BY SRI H.VEERANNA, ADV.) AND1 2. THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY, DHARWAD. THE REGISTRAR, SELF AND ADMINISTRATION, KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY, DHARWAD. ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MALLIKARJUNA S HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R-1;) RESPONDENT No.2 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO COMPENSATE THE MONETARY LOSS SUSTAINED TO PETITIONER ALONG WITH OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL SERVICE BENEFIT, ETC. :
2. : THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER
S, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER
This writ petition is filed with a prayer for a writ of mandamus and to direct the respondents to compensate the monetary loss sustained by the petitioner as she was not initially selected for the post of an S.D.A., though she was eligible.
2. Petitioner applied for the post of S.D.A. cum typist in response to a notification dated 12.4.2007, issued by the first respondent-University. She was not selected. It was conveyed to the petitioner by two endorsements dated 11.5.2007 and 6.6.2007 that though telegrams were sent to her to produce original documents, she had failed to produce and therefore she was not selected. Petitioner challenged the said endorsements before this Court in W.P.No.10194/2007. By an order dated 26.3.2010, this Court allowed the said writ petition in part and directed the respondents :
3. : to consider her representation dated 15.6.2007 and to appoint her to the post of typist within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Respondent-University challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.A.No.1448/2012 and the said appeal was dismissed as not pressed.
3. Shri H.Veeranna, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents vide communication dated 18.4.2013, appointed the petitioner and she reported for duty on 24.4.2013. Thus, there was a delay of 5 years and 6 months in giving her order of appointment. The said delay has occurred due to the illegal act on the part of the respondents in driving her to this Court and litigating the matter. In the premise, she has lost a sum of Rs.7,16,143/- and the respondents are liable to make good the said loss and in addition to give other benefits permissible in law. :
4. Per contra, Shri Mallikarjuna S.Hiremath, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that admittedly, the endorsements issued by the respondents dated 11.5.2007 and 6.6.2007 were challenged in W.P.No.10194/2007. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the respondents have appointed the petitioner vide communication dated 18.4.2013. There was no direction by this Court in the order dated 26.3.2010 for payment of any cost or compensation. Petitioner has accepted the order of appointment without a demur and reported for duty on 24.4.2013. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for her claim of Rs.7,16,143/- nor any other benefit by way of compensation due to delay in issuance of appointment letter.
5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material papers.
6. Facts in this case are not in dispute and in a narrow compass. According to the petitioner, there has :
5. : been a delay of 5 years and 6 months in appointing her. She has made a claim for Rs.7,16,143/- which according to her is the quantum of salary which a clerk cum typist was entitled for the period between November 2007 to March 2013.
7. Petitioner has not pointed out either an admitted or an adjudicated liability upon the respondent-University. It is settled in law that a claim for monetary compensation needs to be decided in a trial as it involves questions of fact, evidence and determination of liability. The ostensible claim made herein, being ex-hypothesi cannot be examined in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. It is relevant to note that the petitioner did challenge both endorsements dated 11.5.2007 and 6.6.2007 before this Court in W.P.No.10194/2007. The order of this Court dated 26.3.2010 does not contain any direction for payment of any sum. However, the said :
6. : endorsements were quashed by this Court and direction was issued to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner and to appoint her to the vacant post of typist within the timeframe prescribed therein. The said order has since been complied with. Hence, the petitioner is estopped from making any further claim.
9. The case of the petitioner can also be looked from another angle and in that, admittedly, the petitioner has not rendered any service in the respondent-University to claim the salary payable to a clerk cum typist. It is fairly well-settled in Service Law Jurisprudence that there shall not be a direction for payment of wages for the period during which an employee has not rendered any service on the principle of ‘no work, no pay’ [see U.O.I. vs. B.M.Jha, reported in (2007)11 SCC632 10. In view of above discussion, in my considered view, petitioner shall not be entitled for any monetary compensation or any other benefit. This petition is :
7. : misconceived and accordingly stands dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-. Yn. Sd/- JUDGE