I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 4'?" DAY OF _
THE HON'I-ISLE MR.JUSTIC1§) RAVI §)£.AimA*r:g;
WRIT PETPTION No.4599o OF 2002 Q3
BETVVEEN :
G.Ramakka, *
W/0 late C.Bang::
Aged 50 years,3
Residing at No. 1893 "
Near Badrinarayan"T§:mpi'e,
Gandlfirlagar. W01'kifl:8'='I1._
Class A Post, EKSRTC,
DiviS_i_oz1£--»Qfi"i<;e, % = " V
V.
Sri sureshajeém 85
Sxi F, Advocates)
" T
1} Divisional Controller,
"- : f j I~'«£o:atiV Transport Corporatian,
Bgzllary.
PETITIONER
Q$£/
2) The General Manager,
KSRTC, Central Oflice,
(By Sri Ravi V.Hosn:1am'. 85 V ~ '~
Smt. H. R.Renuka, Advocates,' for. _;respondents}_ Q ' V .
~0–0–o~
This Writ petition is filed t’1:nder«.AI1i;ic1ee 226 & 227
of the Constitution of” “In(ii_a” pzfaying “to direct the
respondents to ‘iegulaxise the”«Vpet1ifl0nér in service of
KSRTC as peonfor ~ [and also direct the
respondent 5to the …pei;itioner in service of
KSRTC a-s%_peo:1V’or~«:.§}1Va».~:s”IV’ ‘:3er.tJ_at1t;§from 2249- 1986, etc.
Tlfis. on for hearing this day,
the Comt It;audeVVt11e_ fo3}ow;’._ng:~
in writ petition ;\zo.12s95/19% on
gV18-8;i9.9*v2o, an order to the following effect:-
” The learned Counsel for the Petitioner
on the other hand submitted that the
Petitioner died on the last working day of
his service te., 6.8.1986. Since there is no
4%/:-~
material on record to conctusively
that the Petitioner died qfier the A’
of Service, this is a. fit __case’
Respondent taking mm é 7
the deceased enzployee’ behimti. 1
wife and 4 minor S
appointing her “‘graup.él,
more so bec:ca1Vseil:>f she has
been workirzg over 6
yams
%%%% M shall be Issue” d
her as a Class-
IV witiaifis months hereof
wit disposed of in terms of the
V _ T. gficler.’
thereof the respondents appointed the
V’ i~ ‘p§;titiQner by an Endorsement dated 8- 12» 1992. The
A’ Pégtitioner being dissatisfied with the same filed a writ
% petition No.932/ 1997 seeidng to direct the respondents
to effect her appointment with effect from 22~–9-1986
and not as has been done with efibct fiom 8-”
This Court by order dated 2-3- 1999 ‘V
petition directing the mspondczofo J
representation of the pe1:itioner«”~ ai<
representation being made the the
respondents by an 1V§~ ix0–2001
rejected the plea of the by the
same, the
2. Natwitnstazgéigggonfigo that the petitioner was in
unabjoto any right} this Court by its order
‘ mm ._A11§1iét,” 1992 passed in writ petition
directed the respondents to absorb 1161*
L asooiasswzifeonéplayee within 3 months thereof. The said
“order ” vvvéias passed in View of the fact that
the fact that there: was no material on
kt to conclusively establish that the petitioner died
A after the terminatsm of service or before the said data of
termination. In View of the fact that the petitioner was
%4&-”
ix.§0J’>
working as a daily wage employee since
so the petitioner was appoilatedmw on ” ” 2
ground, the said order was .. 3 A
3. The petitioner claims ilie date
of appointment shoula””.-fie. is wholly
misoonceivecl. ‘I4’ile_order’oi’ been made
purely in issued by this
Court. Even available, a lenient
View was and a diiection was
issued. ‘I’1ie.._;ieti1:io1_1er_ apfiea_;.e’ rs to have wrongly misread
fithe by this Court and has now
AV’._Vattempteil’~t;x«,.§re_-date the effective date of appointment
The ground urged by the petitioner
‘ ‘was from the date of death of her husband
clifiiculty in maintaining the family and in View
fact that she has already served a number of
as a daily wage employee, she deserves to be
appointed with eifect from 1986. No legal grounds are
all/c’
urged by the petitioner which calis for iI1tCI’f.6I’f$§fkC:(.$ }5;’;.{A’
this Court. Only because she was appointedfiasi
wager in the year 1986 would not ‘fiésxf ‘i”c>4:’r.f.a”., ‘V
regularisation Rom 22-9-1986
not based on reg111a1*isat:ion df_ ‘V ‘
on the basis of thg, byfi’ Court.
Therefore, the i ‘petitrioner is
u::1sustainabIe_, « *_-.
4». F9? not find any merit
in this “.-.*:l;_(:St7<1«aE'di11g1y, it is rejected. No
costs, ,
A' _____
Iudge