High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Mohan Honnappa Karadi vs The Managing Director Ngef … on 11 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri Mohan Honnappa Karadi vs The Managing Director Ngef … on 11 November, 2008
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
 % 

WP N{'1.95§1,52Q{?§

IN THE men coum or KARNATAKA'  if   * 

cmcurr amen AT DI~.IA3.'*7'?A!2%' "  " = IF >  %

myrnn THIS mm 11% my or 'Ivs1;:f1mn;w::;%,-éo::$'s'[j'-% 

nnmtn:L
THE Hom3LE y1R.JUsTIca1_1§3.§§--ngoHAz§ fimntav
WRIT pET1T1¢m€1Jo.§5 12;;

Between:

S1"i.?\«'¥£3h3I1 H0n.na33pé§VLKa1ad<i,  _ 
Son of Sri.Hofinappa'Ké:ra:;{i,.f---._  . "
Aged abcaut 56 §»<ea;r::.*,.;__   ~ & 
Reaiding at No';3jL--1?5-:3; "~'1'3*I\/I{2r.i11 R;:a::,"
Priyadaxshini C'»<)1{3:;'5%._    _ _'
I»iz1bl:£.58OV"€}3().._ ' _    " _  PETITIONER.

(By 8ri.ne!.H.VVi{a3:Eadi.V'f§:A'.. A - 

Srifishgk s.m_e:esink>a:{ .Advs)

917%'  i>;i:~§etm~,
NG':1iF' '{&?~Iub1i§." ,
{G0vt;---pf E{:~:a"t_1a§.:Laka Enterprise}

% ' P. B. R0&d,"'Roy'apur,
" " .   G69. 8 . , RESPONDENT

  Tx(§y~$§§,;Vijay Kama' Balmal Assts, Advs}

This getiticn is fiiefi under ari:ic1e3 226 and 227 of the

 "-- _VV€3C¥11stitutin of India praying to quash thrz communication
A ~  'dt.?'.i2.2GG6 vkie Am1exuna--G zeceived fmm the ztspondent,

since, the same is unjust, arbitraxy and vioiative of articles 14
and 16 of the Consfituiion of India and e'{c,, :.
W
J



WP 363.95} 153905

20

This petition coming on for prelim' inaxy   i..'_It3'1   i 

group, this day, the Court made the f{)H0_'Wi1€}.g:4 I
ORDER

According to tha learxtxecd far the_i_peti.*:ioif1;I:,iiVthc
reliefs sought in the writ v§Je1;.ition.=i’i$ agyn

ccmsifieratians.


2. The fiacts   as Senior
Superintendent    deputeci to aerve

the i’espondét1i4§sE*;’§EE’ appears that NGEF
(Bangalore), £156 extended a voluntaxy
rézfirement _schc;i}iei2¢’hiif;i;1 ivfigisfibcepted by the pwetificner and
gitizij Vibensats, retired finm the emplcyment emf

tfié’ N 1 (‘B:anga1i6re} and four years themaftrzr made a

V,&£ma’ ms hfef in the zaspnndeni-?€GE7F ifiuhlij 53 ifis

V7._a$2~;cVrticv2’1 athsr ex-empioyees of NGEF ffiangaierc}

; ..abScrbcé ia the respanéemt-organisation. That demanfi

implied by letter dated G”?.G2.2GC¥5 fin11fixurc-G

‘ (mt thai re:-ahsG:rptiz:>n of an fimpioyee who secured

mtimment fmm NGEF {Bangalara} was impez°m.1’$sih§€

in the zasp<3adent»S0mpmy.'i/;b,__{§\

WP No.951ig{2006

3. Although learned counsel for the pgtitioner ‘C{)3u*…’,y»

Comgaany amounts to discriminatiozq uxlficf.fiI’fiC1€i’ 1f5–v..Qf VA

Constitution af India, i am not’v’vL4Lp,§f¢}7azedV” 1 the
submissions. I say so, ‘.AiLé;”‘§he re;=A?.1:)Vn.{1ent~
organisation to 6it1Z1€1″Va];)pGiIj,t”§#_(i#T.;fiI#;f:%’€1f:’t~.vi§%g’é§i;:;’~V”0f otherwise
Pfirsons to scrvc 03;: havirzg
not shown that Cannot as an:

unfettered or absorption in
the «’the facts of the case, the
respancienfagyrg.-Qxiisaltiozi; justificci in rejccting the
J*,j;a:’,-5V’£;*l1:i_~*;>1:3.n[ zwappeintlnexzt and

c:::1}i”;:.1£3’t.:ri”e1’a:$$;it:1:ii;:% vMi:n ofAriic1€ M of the Ccmsfitution.

T’ in”~t11eV__3:%:31,éit,: the writ pmzitien is ufiiheui maria; and

” ”

Sd/-»
Iuclge