High Court Karnataka High Court

P Krishnamurthy vs The Director Of Social Welfare … on 31 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
P Krishnamurthy vs The Director Of Social Welfare … on 31 March, 2008
Author: Cyriac Joseph Malimath
IN THE HIGH coum op KARNATAKA AT BANG,fi:l_4fi(")»!V§I5"34E:4"V;~ ~

DATED THIS THE 3181' DAY OF MARCE   2  "  '

PRESENT 

THE HOWBLE MRCYRIAC ,:osE1$n_,  @{,?SPI$E  

ANDQ V
THE HON'BLE Mimu  = i?A1V'1E..MALiMATH:

wrzrr PE'}I'I'1'ION  E0;488?f/:2o§531A. (3; Km
BETWEEN:      

3/0 C-PaP. E Building,

  *s3nga}iarc 560 001.

V   Disirict Social Welfare

 V' Oficer, Kolar District,
_*Ko1a.--z~ 553 101.



3. The Taluk Social Welihxe _
Ofliccr, Bangarpet Taluk,
Bangarpct 563 1 14,

Kolar District.  RESPOi'¢:l3F§NTS..   A

(By Sri B. Sreenivasa Gowda, Govt. Adv($c:at§)"n .. :3 A

This Writ Petition coming  the' V L'
Court delivered the foliowing.    " d 

CYRIAC JOSEPH C.J. V{Ora§v_..--  j;  

(1) The H   ' th%§._''VVV''aVpp1icant in Application
No. 1153/  L : fie Karnataka Admjnistativc
Tribunal. V_ _v    to the respondents in the

passed an Enterim order dated

fhc operation of the impugned order dated

1) until further orders. As per Annexurc~

_°-…_A;z1_ oxtidr 23.9.2000 passed by the 1st zespondent, the

Véavierdd dated 27.2.1998 regularising the services of the

cancelled with immediate efiiect. The respondents

H V A fiiéddvditply in the application disputing the ciaim of the applicant

g/

that he was appointed in service on 19.6.1984.

respondents, the applicant was appointed in

9.10.1985. Though the applicant contended.

appointed on daily Wages vide order the

Comm3.s’ sioner, K0131″ district and his services ated it

and on his representation; ~,he was-A. ‘service on
9.10.1985, the Tribunal on interim order
passed on 18. -in the Tribunal
observed that fiaud on the
department the learned counsel
appearing the the pnoduetion of the
oxiginal of order dated 19.6.1984 of the
ljteputy by the order dated 27.2.2008
__order dated 18.10.2000, the applicant has

mcde.:swnt
{2}-We hasze..’~whea1d learned counsel for the petitioner and also

Governnieiit Advocate who accepted notice for the respondents.

order dated 19.65.1984 is the copy of the order passed

hytheé Deputy Commissioner, Kolar appointing the petitioner as

Typist on daily walges with effect from 19.5.1934. ThepV.o1:_;def

14.2.2008 passed by the Tribunal shows that

produced by the learned Government fitiiioonte

appointment order was not signed by fieputy

but by someone eise (“for Deputy Corniizissione-r?).*V.. T is’

the photocopy of the appoin1;;nent”‘on:n1e:;VV to the
applicant. It shows that been signed
by the Deputy T__ but the
communication signed by someone for
Deputy is not unusual that the
competent on the tile and copy of the
order is appointee by a subordfilate
n?.1tboIity.« ‘fiance that the appointment order was

Commissioner himself and it was

pp by his subordinate authority. This

V M nof taken into account by the Tribunal.

(3) Oiicebi’ the stay order wanted on 18.10.2000 is vacated,
“se1*eioe’..’of the petitioner is liable to be terminated at any time.

that the petitioner has been continuing in service at

least from 9.10.1985 and that he had a benefit of fh¢._Stny’:ii..o1iier

fmm 18.10.2000, We do not consider it proper or ju’st__tov ‘

the sexvices of the petitioner when Apyplieation ‘i..No.«1 His 1

stiil pending before the Karnataka Adm1m’ it

the respondents have alteady the”?

application, the ‘I’rib1mal could have’Veijf”t?ei1. disposed oi’ the main
application itself instead order dated

18.10.2000.

(4) énjwopinion on the claim of the
petitioner for “on the validity of Annexure-A11
order dated 23.9.._20()().’ _ the Trfiunal to take a decision on
the n1eI*its.i.,i it Even aesutningithat the petitioner had been appointed

efiect fiom 19.6.1984, in Annexuzm-A10 reply

he was removed fmm service on 25.6.1985

end oniy representation, he was re–appointed on

19.85. It is for the ‘I’ribunal to consider Whether the sa1d’

sezvice will stand in the way of the claim of the petitioner

1 for regularisation in service.

9/

05..

(S) In the above circumstances, the writ petition. is disposed

of in the following terms:

(3) Annexurc–~A order dated 27.2.2008_.pa0$ed V
the Karnataka Administ1atj.i}0VbTr:’bi11_1a1 L.
aside. Ccnscquently the stfij :00
the Karnataka Admixrisfcxatifire ‘ 9;:
18.10.2000 is revived séicl Amy égder
will continue Eii$posé1V”‘of”v4fl1e
Application «.

(ii) 4″‘–0.:.§Li}13i}.it’1ist::1tive Tribunal is
dimétrzd to dispaéé-.0f}Xpp1icati0n No.1 153/2000

. ., as e:ii*Iy asV .13osSib1é.

Sé/-‘
Ch§@f E123-‘:icé
351/as
Jfiagmé