High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Siddavva vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Smt Siddavva vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 July, 2008
Author: N.K.Patil
N THE HZGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
C3RCi.}iT BENCH AT GULBARGA

marge THIS THE 23*" DAY OF sure 2908  2 f k  

BEFGRE

THE HONBLE MR. JusT:cE+w; pm-.;_ i %  %

wan' permow NO.34591;33f $199052 (Lflriti?  

QSTWEEN

(av SRLR 3 a;d+:.gpL:égAR;}=':>x;i:3§:i,ajE;'   

'§

am saomxvva
wzo ADNEPPA ' _ '. 5
AGED ABOUT 59 \*'E.ARS"-- ~ . _ -
0:30 RETD, PGLERA KARMIKA
mo AFZALPLiR,_   _  V
aasmzcz? GUL.BA§2GA 3 '

Ti-§E_$'{ATE as §'.:-.zm-:1=.r~n*
vznnmsa scum-A 2 = ~
BANGALGRE - 1,  

3 _§REP.BY rrs szggaeraéwv

"  %Hé§'mA§e£3AL Paéid-éA~zAT
* 1. _ AFZAE.f~'i§R"~--. _
_ ¥?E_P4BY»v!T$_$t§jQRETARY

 « gm s§~'€':'w{um's's§i AGA FOR R1;
 .  V$Ri.BASfia\.{AE'AJ KAREDDV, ADVGCATE FOR R2)

i"t'§'#*

V'  PETETKBNER

 RESPQNDENTS

 A "  ATHIS WRFT PETFHON £8 FILED UNDER AFZTKJLES 28 AN{} 22?" GE'
 CQKSTETUTIQN OF {MGM PRAYINQ TC} QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER
  V§C%E RN?-LE E}"E'.?;3-2~2@02 iSSUE$ EBY R-'E AND GRDER WDE ANNE BT21-
 -3.->£G€¥2 SSUED BY R-2, AND DRECT THE RESPQNBENTS T0 Fix YHE

5'-"ENSlON CF THE PETETEONER AS PER THE PAY SCALE PRE'.é'ELE§'«£T AS

PROGUCWGN OF ANN.E {COPY §3ROf}LiCEQ)(

 Obi '3~3~2%2y A¥'~iD IA} HLEG PRAYENS TO CESPEBESE Wi'FH THE

\\



3

ccsmmunicafing that, she refires with effect from 15' Aprii

1994 an the ground that petiticmer has attaéned ':_i£"';e:'_'ab_s;.j'=e,"

of 58 yeara. ¥mmediateiy after reaeipt   

rzoficelcommunication from the set:-a't§d'*res;§ en_déht.T_ Shaéling 

tum infarmed the competentTVaLrth cr§t:j;«.TVihat  haé 

attained retirement age sf 58  ar;:d"sh:é£'s  ta
be centinued in $ew~§i§_e;._  thé  é~.aa":;rv':e, the
respondent has retired'_.thféf 'AA'b~:V.5§{§§*érefare, aha

was censtraiifjéd 994, assaéiéng
the ct>rrac;§f’;e$s§- V:c_:aef’vV’VVf§?:irV’V.’erz*:ent on the ffie of
the ieafned. C)Ai;sé§’l”‘}i§’gJ1vi:dj’g;e ‘::;.§§:vnic;_r-‘Division) at Afzalpur. The

su§t flied by_4.pet§fiQ}5§§r” decreed on 5″‘ July 199?

_hold_§vr€:g ‘natéggev issued by secand respandent is

§gL’;3{‘.’j:’&’!v8i?¥,’f:i “‘xé'{}’§’.”.’:i:.:Véffd net binding an the petitioner.

§ .’.v;;§i;r§~§.:3ance ca’ the judgment and decree passed

by the fiiéai Court, patitiener has been taken back to duty

‘é?3éb’jF83f 1998 in purauance :3? ma msalutian passed by

saésond respandent. Thereafter, petiticner csntinued in

VA ‘ ” serv§ce fifi she attainad 22 age of 58 years, Se. in tbe

V etateéeppra. V’ V’

3

(Detenninatien of Age), Rules, 1974, the request of
pefitioner cannot be censidered Further, the second

respondent has sought fer sum ciarificetien fmm the.-fifet

respondent and the first respondent, in turn, ~ V.

impugned communicetien dated 13%” Februefy ”

Aenexere E. Ceneequeet upon the said ;:35emn}u.nicet§en€,T_J’:’

the second rmpendent the ,»Vi’e{en’ne{i;one .

communication wide Annexure ,_Bein’g .;1ggraem by
the impugned infermet§enn” cApe1n§;3niee;tien._ issued by the

fire’: rwpondenté _e*n;_t_?3 tne”cer%¥rnunj<:etien.,.ft'rem the second

reepencfeni; feffneeeeeéteted te present
the instent 'peti§en_;"'*«e"eeking appropriate reiiefs, as

heard learned counsel appearing fer

petiti-enef~enp= {earned ceunee! appearing for rwpendente.

V' x After mrefu! peruse! pf flee grounds uyged in the

pefifien inciudéng the impugned cemrnunicatéen dated

n 713**'* February 2902 issued by first respandent,

8

under the reiavant provisions of the Karnawza State

Gavernment Servants (Deterrnination of age)

1974, if she is so advised er need arflse. Ni _

contentiens urged in the writ petitim g;fg»_|_eft ::«;jen.– f =

BMV*