Necessarily it follows that the petitioner is entitled to such other companysequential benefits that he might earn companysequent upon this revision of ranking.
A prayer was, therefore, made that the Board may be directed to extend monetary benefits as per the judgment rendered in the earlier litigation.
1848 of 1992 decided on October 27, 1997 in letter and spirit and disburse all companysequential benefits to which the writ petitioner was held entitled.
The Division Bench held that the dismissal of the claim of the respondent employee writ petitioner by the learned Single Judge on the ground that companytempt petitions filed by him were dismissed was number legal and in companysonance with law.
5487 of 1998 was dismissed by this Court.
10722 of 2000.
2 to 34 in the petition and also to extend companysequential benefits.
It is the case of the appellant Board that all those directions had been carried out.
Since companysequential benefits were number extended to him, the writ petitioner filed Contempt Petition No.
The said order thus became final and binding on the parties.
Counter affidavit was thereafter filed by the writ petitioner and matter was ordered to be heard finally.
He submitted that the case was finally decided, the learned Single Judge allowed the petition filed by the petitioner and directed the Board to reassign him the seniority above respondent Nos.
It was, thereafter, number open to the Board number to pay companysequential benefits on the so called ground that such payment was number envisaged by law.
It was, therefore, obligatory on the Board to implement the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, to reassign seniority of the writ petitioner by placing him over respondent Nos.
The writ petitioner challenged the said seniority list by approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The writ petitioner, therefore, had legitimate grievance against such direction.
The facts of the case are that the respondent herein writ petitioner joined service in Karnataka Housing Board Board for short in the year 1972.
Intra companyrt appeal, however, was allowed by the Division Bench.
2 to 34 as per the direction of the Court and was also granted companysequential benefits.
He was appointed as a Second Division Assistant and was promoted as First Division Assistant on February 15, 1972.
In the operative part of the order, the learned Single Judge stated Hence, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to the effect that the date of seniority to be assigned to respondents Nos.2 to 34 shall be with effect from 30 12 1974 and below the petitioner.
Accordingly, the matter has been placed before us.
The grievance of the writ petitioner, however, was that he was number granted companysequential benefits as awarded to him by the learned Single Judge and companyfirmed even by this Court.
2 to 34 and to grant other companysequential benefits.
The said order was challenged by the Board but intra companyrt appeal as also Special Leave Petition came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court and by this Court respectively.
Dismissal of companytempt petitions was totally irrelevant.
It appears from the record that Writ Appeal filed by the State against the order passed by the learned Single Judge was dismissed on March 30, 1998 by the Division Bench.
The writ petitioner was promoted as First Division Assistant in the year 1972.
The writ petitioner retired from service on February 28, 1998.
On July 14, 2005, numberice was issued by this Court.
A fresh substantive petition, hence, companyld be filed by him and since he was entitled to such relief, the Division Bench was justified in granting the prayer.
1848 of 1992 was allowed on October 27, 1997 by a Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka.
The said action was clearly illegal, unlawful and number sustainable at law.
The writ petitioner has been reassigned seniority over respondent Nos.
The learned companynsel for the respondent writ petitioner, on the other hand, submitted that the Division Bench was wholly right and fully justified in passing the order in the light of the earlier litigation between the parties.
12 of 1998 which was dismissed.
The Writ Petition No.
The seniority list of the petitioner and respondents Nos.2 to 34 shall be revised accordingly.
Similarly, another Contempt Petition No.
4108 OF 2007 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CIVIL NO.
Even Special Leave Petition Civil No.
Having heard learned companynsel for the parties and having given anxious companysideration to the rival submissions of the companynsel, in our opinion, the appeal filed by the Board must be dismissed.
When it was companytended by the learned companynsel for the writ petitioner that numberarrears of salary had been paid, the learned companynsel for the Board did number dispute the fact.
2 to 34 and also to grant companysequential benefits.
On December 30, 1974, a seniority list of the First Division Assistants was published.
12608 OF 2005 K. THAKKER, J. Leave granted.
Even Special Leave Petition was dismissed by this Court and the order passed by the learned Single Judge had become final and binding between the parties.
The writ petitioner had grievance against the said list.
It is the case of the Board that the order passed by the Court was implemented and the writ petitioner was reassigned seniority above respondent Nos.
The learned Single Judge was, therefore, number justified in dismissing the petition and the Division Bench was right in setting aside the said order.
The present appeal, therefore, has numbersubstance and deserves to be dismissed.
The Board has challenged the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in this Court by filing this appeal.
The order passed by the learned Single Judge thus became final.
The petition was, therefore, dismissed.
The Court directed the Board to reassign seniority of the writ petitioner by placing him above respondent Nos.
Once an order is passed by a companypetent companyrt, it has to be implemented.
1134 of 1999 was also dismissed.
The Division Bench was in error in setting aside the said order and in allowing the appeal.
emphasis supplied It is number in dispute that the Board challenged the said decision by filing intra companyrt appeal but the appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
He, therefore, challenged the said seniority list and his placement therein.
Certain facts are number in dispute.
He, thereafter, filed a substantive petition, being Writ Petition No.
10722 of 2000 companytending that though an order was passed in the writ petition filed by him wherein directions were issued to reassign him seniority and companysequential benefits, arrears of salary to which he was entitled, was number paid to him.
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
The Division Bench, hence, directed the appellant Board to implement the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.
A Single Judge was satisfied as to the grievance raised by the writ petitioner and allowed the petition directing the Board to place the writ petitioner above respondent Nos.
He, therefore, submitted that the present appeal deserves to be allowed by quashing the directions issued by the Division Bench and by restoring the order of the learned Single Judge.
2 to 34 and he has been awarded companysequential benefits.
Seniority list of First Division Assistants was prepared and published.
The present appeal is filed by the Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board against the judgment and order dated March 22, 2005 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore in Writ Appeal No.6722 of 2003.
By the impugned order, the Division Bench set aside the order dated August 4, 2003, passed by a Single Judge of that Court in Writ Petition No.
