'scr "
.1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
C|RCU!T BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED was THE 7'" DAY or JULY 2eo_$.D*A :.7E§' ~..
:BEFORE: E: N A
THE HON'BLE MR. .:us'Ar~2c'eDaa.5.D é§m;?D «
W.P.NO. 4491 or 23:32 .*s;REs}D
BETWEEN: 'A
HANUMANTHA _
3:0 BHAGAVANTHAPPA HADAPATH
MAJOR occ: WORK=tN§E'PEC§TOE% . "
INTHEOFFICEOFTHE
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENG:NEER
No.1.P.H.:--:;suB Di'§:'iSi%3N.f * ;
GULBARf3A'E§1C_}GULBARG.Pf
" . PETETIONER
(SRi.S.S. HALe.LL;__AND sm. 4'_J;S;fPAT!L.> ADVDCATES}
AND: V
1 'me <:H:E{=~ '
z;u.A~ PANCHAY)-KT ~ .. __ " ~ . 4
GULBARCV-BA - " .
2 ; ' ~ THE E$<E~::u'm*E Eixsstéaeen
~ pma. PUBL--1C_HEA!_TH ENGINEERING DWISIQN
i.z:1.LA pamcaavuar GULBARGA
' - fag Asjs;:',.?ExEcu'nvE ENGINEER
N011 -- P.i'-i.E. sue BIVISION
zaLmj-EANDHAYAT GULBARGA
RESPONDENTS
»{séij.~ MB. NARAGUND AND SMT. SONA VAKKUND ADVOCATES
” . FOR R-2 AND 3; RI! SERVED)
THiS WRiT PETiTiON IS FILED UNDER ARWCLES 228 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO: QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT
DATED 2}’.?’.209’¥ iSSUED BY 3% RESPONDENT VIBE ANNEXURE-E AND
ALSO DERECT THE RESPONDENT TO REGULAR¥8E THE SERVICES OF
-3-
THE PETITIONER WiTH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS W.E.F. Ti-iE___DATE
ON W1-f!CH HE HAS COMPLETED TEN YEARS OF SERWCE. ; .
ms wen” PEYITEON CGMINC-3 on FOR HEARING Ti~llS”t5:A’.’.flTitEA4
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: .. 2 .___
The petitioner being aggrieved-iby
endorsement dated 27.7.2001 ieeued b;l1ii-ed in
‘ . u _ 6°’->\_.5g
respondent bearing No.a:?::é n_’,.e,:\;_;e:<..~1':..e.-"2_,_-gt;~n§;orV;lr§'. vide
Annexure~E, has pree'ented"' Further,
petitioner hag directing the
respondentew ' eervices with all
item the date on which
he has oemipletedi of service.
2. it isxn’et_V_inV”diepute that, petitioner earlier had filed
before this Court in No. 2315012000
iiieepehkinei .. ci;irection to the respondents therein to
regu’le.riee his mrvice with all consequential benefits with
it frcm the date on which he has completed ten years
V’ service as provided in the Government order dated
68.1999. The said writ petition had come up for
consideration before this Court on 21st September 2000
-3-
and this Court, after hearing both sides has directed the
first respondent to consider the case of the pet’rtlo.ner’for
regularization in emordence with law and also _
of the government orders. ln pursuance oi”the:’dir”eotione ‘* V
issued by this Court, third
the impugned endorsement that, ” it
as per Government order the-services of
the employee who hae ‘l.7’.1%4
cannot be reggulerikzedizliawndi is no scope to
consider without verifying
the oflhevlpetitioner and also not
complied by this Court. Therefore,
petitioner wes”‘oonetreined to approach this Court by filing
seeking appropriate relief as stated
ifhave heard learned counsel appearing for
~ pefitioner and learned coun ei appearing for respondents»
and 3.
h__”
~6-
regularization of service, including the
Apex Court and this Court, before the
within a period of four weeks
copy of this order.
Third respondent __ herein – ‘ té: ifecéive the
same and pass appropfiriafe. ar§_ef?S, 14i’hV%$t:’fict_;compliance of
the above direc;t§:§::s_ ” ‘
tsn*
Sd/-
Judge
