High Court Karnataka High Court

Sayeeda Begum vs The Senior Divisional Controller on 31 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sayeeda Begum vs The Senior Divisional Controller on 31 March, 2009
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
ms;

  A 

 TEE rats}; C.{T)UR"f 0? KAR.E\§A'1"AKA AT BA?€GALOR':Z-- I   i '   "

Dated this the 31*' day ofmarch, 2099 _ H H  ' 

Befcme V _ _
';'1FIEHON'BLE MR .IUS?ZTCE HLi;;w:4}31 :Cj RAAij;_;S}1'v '~ V' "
Writ Petition 59o2,€, 2ao9  V

Between:

1 Sayeecla Bagum, 55 yrs
W/'o laie Syed Ummer
Housewife, Rfo Kjkkefi Read
KR pet Town :' .. _  _   
'3viax1d§:'a      'V   

Ssyed Irfan S£3g;at::_   &  V '
25 yrs, axe  $45.2. ' ' '
Kfipetffown ~ _  _  .
Mandya = ' V V' 2, V%   = ' ' Petitioners

1%.}

{By 3;: M C Pyati,  

37:'; .Di§v;s;m§.éi r?r.§ii£ro{iei= .__
KSRTC7, §*«iai:g.f;1h);e 'Di'a%i§i'u!l
' '~  Resgimndent

 '§;B;»; Smt if __I?.a;1v_1.:-i¢::,_ V%;+é:.x;£.a)

;  "' ,:"§'I1§:sw.W:'i{"i3etiiien is filed under at,226z-Q2? 0f the Cfingtimtien
_  7p:'a}*£r;'g1e. _qué3h the enéersement dated i3f}8.6.20£}'7 ~~ annsmre C by the
"»_"Vr.esp_<md¢;nt.' "

 f j 4'  ~III£i{1i'."3 the fuliowing:

'   Wgit Peiitiarn earning an far preiirninary hearing this éay; the

M



IN.)

ORDER

Fetitioners are the lagal represantatives cf the dacwfiéé 1 ”

Syad Ummer. Per the nfisconduct fif non~i:§$I;afii:e– cf ti§:ke£s; “i;”éc§!:i1xjy’v_§&fasV}’..V

heié against him and was dismissed frcsm service. *.H:mve;~,_

mder of reinstatement with 50% back wég¢§;’ ~ ysrxajttefi
the werkman cxpireé. On humagzitarian VA;:r:+§V:Vv.ji:i¢r:a!§ar;n, {he the iagzfi
repraserztatives was considered §rid i:3)2: campensation cf
5{}% hack wages was efJ::1j§de(i.:.””}i¥>i:%s;’¢\.?er;¢&é’:§,f l*«3.r.2*£_?1:é:%’.’V”.<3v23;téd 25.6.2{}i'}3, the
Divisian Bench sf 2 sv1;1}=§ §':fi§«.r 0f the Single Judge
ragarding rair;_s§:_;i£:&:agV fi;eV :.3rds~:2.* sf payment 9f 59%
haek =:_vages:v:;;:)uI§.i'_A:§ét' Etv§ was made clear that the legal

rcp:*esent3tive$7 .iV}f"=l'§'i6'W{)1§'}¥i!'§2:§TI' 't*?af=E1!iit3i§ :10! be axztifieci fer ccmpasgionate

appai:1t2n~;::;§, _

,_E:;;V peiiticmers are seaking ta quash the issuance cfzf

Z endorsagnent V?::'t_§»" raspernéent auflmrity, net in antefiakx their C-33$: for

-‘4._;é};s’4.1;;§;.*:ief€:i-.ii’1:’3£ :he21%;:’é;2::nf.t)£ ;

ciaim 13:}; the he-ga} represcntaiives fer compaéiségirmze appéfiafifiént.

In that View c:ef_the. m3ttmi_ quashing the
cemmunircatien for a mandamus to
consider the case . appointment weuid not
arise. Pefitzgfi

Sd/-~
Iudge