-- I ~ WP305-29.08
:11 THE men wear or KARHATAKA
cmctzrrr BENCH AT mmnwan ( u %
DATED T!-I18 ms 23%" BA'? or ocroamg
mmnn V J '1 ~ N 51] E V' _
I-ION' Ems: MR. JUSTICE E 7
WRIT PETITION No.3os:_.>9 ok Is»1é%z:.§j». = "
BETVIE N:
SRIDHAR NAIK
s/0 SHIVAPPA NAIK ,
AGE: 57 YEARS _
occ: LINE MECHANIC GRNEEE-16'
R/O Em CROSS, GANDHINAGAR ' *
KUMATATQKUiMA'1'A;' _ - *
DIST: :rrrAR;a1<:1aNNADA =: _ PE'I'I'I'IONER
V 1111 'S31, EN: ,bNA;§::QQNo, ADV., FOR
r 'A -- . fr M:~;Na_mu§j"as 12 M NADAF', ADV. ,;
1 THE cH1EF'mANA_GER-- _
ABMiNIS§'RA'i'iVE ANI3._HUM'AN
RESOURCES ANHAPPELLATE AUTHORITY
KAENATAKA ELECTRICITY
" . BOAVRE3'-EKAVERI BHNVAN
. EANGALQRI_fL-..9
2 SUP"Ei2Ii¥§T§'Ei'¥DENI' ENGINEER
EXECUTIVEAYJD SUPERVISOR CIRCLE
HUBL§ VELEMNICIW SUPPLY co LTD
Hum "
' THE E§{EC{3'I'iVE ENGINEER
-- _ EXECU'}'§VE AND SUPERVISOR CIRCLE
'IHUBLI ELEC'I'RIC§'I'Y SUPPLY co LTD
EARWAR
" ' ~. _ Re; "THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
EXECUTIVE ANS SUPERVISOR
SUB DIVISION, I-iUBLi ELECTRICXTY
SUPPLY COM PAN'! LTD
KU MATA RESFONDENTS
- 2 - WP30529.08
THIS WRIT PE'I'i'I'ION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF
THE CONS'i'I'I"U"I'i0N OF' INDIA, PRAYING T0 QUASH THE IMPUGNEK)
ORDER ¥3'1':l1.8.2f)08 PASSED BY R2 VIBE ANN~F AND E'I'C.,.
THIS PE'I'I'I'§ON COMING on FOR ORDERS, THIS "i:§A$?";~.fi'flE
coI.mTMAm:'rH1: FOLLOWINC}:- u ,_
_Q§.l2E_..R
This writ petition by an empl}9yeg:.4£;f
Supply Company Limited who 3 ;
voluntaxy retirement from zfitilpiication on
1.3.2008 and the voiuutafif given cfibct to
fmm31.5.2003.
2. It at the relevant time the
respondent 1-" ».¢mplx6yéI' ._ I'6C6IV' ed certam' complaint
that disclosed his correct date of birth
was that aspect.
3. V.’%\%§’11ploycr did not act on the request for
and was pursumg° the enquiry and in
_- “bile the date fimn which the petitioner had
for for being relieved from services on 31.5.2008 also
expired and therefore the petitioner cemtinued in
– 3 – WP30529.08
service, subsequently the employer has in terms of “order
dated 11.8.2008 [copy at Amwxure-F] has
petitioner to retire from service with effect
31st May, 2003.
4. It is this order which is foe writ” 0
petition.
5. Appearing Dharigond,
I learned counsel the petitioner
while ‘hfefiiement with effect from
31.5.20()8v,V.7hes to quash the order,
particularly when once the respondent —
:.’j’employe£* did not the request of the petitioner to
from service with effect from 31.5.2008
order subsequently gving efiect to that
ateqaxest w:.t§; retrospective effect and further making it
sagbject is outcome of the enquiry that had been initiated
the petitioraer.
– 4 — WP30529.08
6. Submission is that if the employer wishes to
the enquiry, the petitioner is not R0811 on presekig
application for vokmtaiy retirement and. –.
petitioner cannot be relieved and oi: ‘V
employer is inclined to permit the-.__ L.
his request that cannot be toifjhevvfeutcome
of the enquiry.
'7. This court ivgranted interita order the petitioner 8. submissions made on behalf
‘rm “petifiener__ by ‘3:>han°gond, learned counsel, 1 find
ttie— is not one warranting interference
what has been done is to permit the
i ” ” to;retire in terms of his own request. It is 1:1oth1I’ 1%
pmlanee that a pending enquiry may be
it beyond retirement also and the retirement een be
it hiiiade subject to the result of a pending enquiry.
– 5 – WP30529.C8
9. Such being the legal position, there is
interfering with the impugned order which 13 K
order brought about in the context of
relationship between the petitioner respo ,’ –
10. It is open to the petitioner o.t}i€:z#.;-egfiedies as
are available in law, but Léédismissed.
An/~