Abdul Hakem S/O Shaik Chita vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 February, 2010

 "  p  the petidtiorier.

V  Vi   is to be noticed that the earlier order

"-to be "t_ake11 as on duty. But. however pursuant to a 

calculated the beriefits which are payable to him. A
copy of which is produced at Annexure 
13.1.2009. Whiie determining the  
the petitioner the respondent  of"
dismissal also  between  
however pursuant to  a it
copy of which is «the said
period is treated as  Aggrieved by
the said order    Court.

2. Le;1r11ied£A:'e'oV1ihseji._i"or__t'he"v_petitior1er submits that

the beriéfii'Vi1ifl;iC1'i:::TC1'i*F3 'peptitior1'e'i'~h"ad derived pursuant to
AnneX'iire"D  the order at Annexure E.

She submits that. th.e"e'htire exercise is done without

  disclosed that the said period is required

'3  



Iatter/ order that has been withdrawn. indeegi the
benefit. which had accrued for petitioner 
Annexure D is taken away without notice  '
1 am of the View that the l'I}1pE1:{;7I'l'€d..  21$! it
Annexure E is v;'ithout notice  
principles of 'natural justice; option  the"
writ petition and direet  the

Calculation again after' n;_o'tiCe7to V"peti.ti0ner. Hence

the following .oztte::

{vi1')i'The:"writ"petition is sii'i~cm?ed.

(2)  E is quashed. The
 Tremitted for respondent for re-

 It is also open for the
 to decide as to whether the

"----V:p'et"'itioner is entitled for the payment during

 7.2.2000 to 1.1.8.2000. having regard to the gig
. 

6

decision rendered by the learned Single Judge
as well as by the Division Bench.

Petitiola stands disposed of attcordingiy. ‘

S&.!j ?%éii% &%%jLj –

3U9GE<¢°,}

YKL/ —