IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 PRESENT TI-IE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.GoPA.LA Q§3~'»*.'rqAi_"_j " AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE '0_ WRIT APPEAL No, 1_778/2OI0'8[S«~RE§}. 0' BETWEEN: HINDUSTAN AERONAUT.I_C':'» LIMITI:3D , CORPORATE OFFICE _ ., .. N0.15/1,_CU_BBC)N ROAD BANGALORE-'-- 56.0001'; 2 I-£INDUS"I°AN'AERONAUTICS LTD AEROSPACE 'DIVI-SI'QN,.- THITRPASANDRA POST _BANGALORE.w 5.50675 4;: REP BY GENERAL MANAGER. . . .APPELLAN'I'S A '(By «SHASTRI, ADV.) R 'I SR1 H BHYRAVA MURTHY S/O. LATE SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO.181, 6TH CROSS, BTH BLOCK, BSK III STAGE III PHASE. BANGALORE -- 560085. . .. RESPONDENT
[By Sri: K ABHINAV ANAND COUNSEL)
-2-
vwur*APpEAL1nLED U/S 4 or THE KARNATAKA
HIGH comm’ ACT PRAYING TO srzr ASIDE rm: ORDER
PASSEE}lN THE “mar PETHION’NC119705/2007 DATED
22/09/cs. .”«
This Appeal coming on for preliminary
day, Gopala Gowda J., delivered the following: ”
JUDGMENr_;'”
Though the matter is listed’1«for::’_’_Vacatir1g;’
order, we have examined theVlcorrzectne’ssV of the o’rd’er.passed’~ V
by the learned single judge urith__reference tothepscope of the
scheme and after careftil.. readirigu Lparas 2.4~.1(i] and
2.4.2[v] the interpretation’rnadVe’ single judge
regarding’ ‘regarding'”retrospective effect of the
schemeA_p(iiicludingVj”_benefit] as indicated in paras
2.4.16] and._Vhh2;v4.V2{_\_r]A1to”the person, who retired from the
A_ serwfce: as _on thedate of circular which came into force.
These ~said’«.interpretation of the learned counsel for the
Ii?-‘3lt.it:ioner’l–.Vi5:_ permissible by a careful reading of paras
2.4.ul{i] 2.-4.2[v]. The endorsement issued to the
if V’ .. appellant by the Senior Manager of the second respondent is
illegal and valid, therefore the same does not call for our
it hfllinterference. The quashing of the same is contrary to the
scope and the clauses referred to supra in the scheme. The
benefit under the scher\eR has to be intended to the