Deep Dive
Driver's Disability Limbo: 45% Certification Ignored
A driver who suffered 45% disability in 2017 has been on lighter duties continuously since then, with medical certificates consistently confirming his condition through 2021 and beyond. In 2024, despite this documented history, the corporation ordered him back to regular driving duty. When he challenged this before the court, the medical board's fresh examination found him suffering from IVDP at multiple spinal levels but concluded he cannot be considered permanently disabled because the condition requires further treatment and surgical management. The court expressed frustration that the medical board had ignored the 13-point norms it had previously established for disability assessment. The judge questioned how a person medically unfit to drive could be assigned driving duties when 260 other similarly disabled candidates have been put on reduced assignments. The corporation's counsel argued it can only reassign based on disability percentage under the Persons with Disabilities Act, while the court countered that a doctor's statement of unfitness to drive supersedes percentage calculations for public safety.
Retroactive Resignation Acceptance Creates Wage Gap
A worker submitted his voluntary retirement application on 29 November 2013, citing health grounds and providing a medical certificate. The corporation did not accept his resignation until 27 February 2014 — a delay of three months — but then gave it retroactive effect to 13 January 2013, creating an 11-month period where wages ceased accruing despite him technically remaining an employee. The applicant now claims wages for the entire period from 29 November 2013 to 13 January 2014, plus interest for the withheld amount. The court struggled with the logic: the worker argued that if they accepted retroactively to January, they must have known in January he was eligible, so why not accept from his submission date? The labor court had already ruled he was not entitled to wages because he did not work, applying a no-work-no-pay principle, but the judge noted the worker never testified he was prevented from working — an absence the court found telling. The respondent corporation argued that acceptance retroactively to January was administrative procedure, but the court suggested at minimum six months interest should apply given the documented delay from November 2013 to February 2014.
Interest Rate Conflict: Act vs. Regulations
A terminated worker received a gratuity award at 10% interest under the Payment of Gratuity Act, but the respondent corporation had adopted its own regulations offering 5.4% interest. The petitioner's counsel argued the regulations, if applied, would yield nearly double the benefit because basic pay revisions between dismissal and retirement multiply the calculation base. The court initially said it had no choice but to apply the statute's 10% because that is what the law provides, but when pressed, the judge acknowledged the corporation had adopted regulations by board resolution and therefore must follow them if they are more beneficial. The issue centers on whether the worker can claim both the gratuity under the act and the higher interest under regulations, or must choose one framework. The respondent's counsel struggled to point out the specific regulation provision entitling the worker to interest, and the court expressed skepticism that a corporation can simply opt for whichever calculation suits it best. The wage was calculated up to the date of dismissal in 2021, but the worker was not reinstated until 2024, creating a gap the court acknowledged but could not easily resolve without seeing the regulations themselves. The interest portion was left open for further submission.
Whistleblower Charged Alongside the Accused
A chief financial officer at BMTC discovered irregularities in credit note issuance — specifically, that unauthorized credit notes were being given to a license holder — and immediately flagged this to senior management in July 2023, before any formal investigation was ordered. He did not just raise the alarm once; he persistently communicated that inquiry must be held. Later, a criminal case was filed and a charge sheet issued in November 2024 against 28 officials, including the petitioner himself. The petitioner challenged the charge sheet as vague and maintained that he was the complainant, not the perpetrator. He had signed the credit note, but only because the commercial department placed it before him for signature; the moment he realized the irregularity, he communicated to authorities that it must be withdrawn and that orders must be issued to recover the amount. The court reviewed the timeline and the communication dated 7 July 2023 in which the petitioner raised the red flag, and concluded that while he signed the document, he immediately reported it and sought its withdrawal. The judge found the charges against him vague and noted that permitting further investigation would constitute an abuse of the process of law. The court allowed the petition, staying the criminal proceedings, and directed the respondent to provide all relevant documents to the petitioner and allow him to file an additional reply within two weeks — effectively giving him space to defend before any departmental inquiry proceeds.
RTE Reimbursement Rates Frozen for Seven Years
The Right to Education Act mandates that for the 25% quota of seats in unaided schools, the government must reimburse per-child expenditure calculated according to a state formula. Karnataka's rules require annual notification to set this amount before each academic year begins. The last notification was issued in 2019. Seven years later, no new notification has been issued, leaving schools uncertain what reimbursement they will receive and leaving the mechanism stuck. A petitioner filed a mandamus petition seeking to compel the government to fix the per-child expenditure for the current academic year. The court acknowledged that the rule explicitly requires this annual notification but noted that the respondent government had committed only to issuing a notification — not to any particular rate. The government's counsel suggested a committee would handle the calculation, but the court was skeptical of delay tactics and asked why annual notification had not been a routine administrative function for seven years. The judge noted this exact issue came before the court in 2019 when the same petitioner obtained an order, filed a contempt, and yet the state has not established a reliable annual system. The court expressed concern that without a set rate, schools cannot plan reimbursement accurately, and the RTE quota itself becomes meaningless if payment is indefinite.
Promotion Error: Seventeen-Year Inertia Protects Beneficiary
A candidate was promoted in 2019 to a position he was not eligible for — a mistake acknowledged by the department. Seventeen years later (or by the court's count, for over a decade), the government sought to revoke the promotion. The petitioner argued that the mistake belonged to the department, not to him, and that after such a long period of undisturbed service, revocation would be unjust. The respondent contended that all mistakes can and should be corrected by due process of law, citing precedent. The court found itself caught between two principles: that administrative errors should not go uncorrected, and that a person cannot be allowed to suffer the consequences of a department's negligence, especially after years of continuity. The judge acknowledged the appellant's citation of a Supreme Court judgment in which a similarly illegally promoted person had been protected because the error went unchallenged for more than a decade. The court noted that while correction is theoretically possible, the practical effect of revoking a seventeen-year-old promotion would be to recover all benefits paid — a massive liability — and to do so now without having given notice and opportunity when the error was first discovered would itself be procedurally unfair. The court suggested that if the government wishes to proceed, it must show the original cohort of 420 candidates appointed at the same time, and if this one beneficiary is to be treated differently, all others must be similarly examined. The court adjourned the matter to Monday to allow the respondent to produce documentation and to give the petitioner a fair hearing before any corrective action is taken.