Sri A Murulidhara vs The Divisional Controller on 16 March, 2009

ruurv uuum ur M-uwu-nan» 2-nun \..9..-vpxu ur nnxnnu-Imn HIUH Luum ur nAKNRlAlU| l"HUH LUUKI Ur KARNAIAIU-\ HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH 1

as-raosmcrrvs EFSECT mar; ma: rme: C-E' aazuovpg;-.§;x.g
CONSGUENTIAL asussxws ATTACHED .fo -_°?H$f:'«
amrusrawauamw As was PETITIGN$fi, IS axwzfzsbf man, '='

ALSO T3 31330? THE assyoxnauw TO PAY ,aL;. 

TEE SAME .

T1-{I5 WP con-trma on 5'93 'm3.sLI§tI1§AaY .313

*3! GROUP THIS nav, THE couém mags TH$ft5LL¢$InG

The   far quashing

the impug1i1-eV;1~::,_ué;*§7a.1§ci'  passed by
the a$£e;§fi&aw ¢§ugt3Lah¢ux Court in Rsf.

N¢.51I19§?7GV_ and also to issue

writ: r;.>f:'v ;:1a.n§1xés~.rtrn 1's"' d_i;x:ef¢ting the respondent to

tfhasf case of the petitianar £01:

x:AeL’3~’i..:::s_:’a§¢t:–.-.-:.:tn§z1’|.’.L.T’-with zetroapaeztive effect from

theAiiZ’ate;”‘s:;fAremoval and alas to ciireat the
ta pay all the rscnaequential

attached to the reinstatement as the
_ ;w-t.ii.ticne3: is entitled for the same and fax:

‘ Each ether reliefs .

§F/

nnmvanunnn nrun uuuau Ur IKAKIVAIAIKA Hfléfl C

lI\?F1. ‘I–\I\JI\ V \II’ l\l’I!\!Vfl”‘IlI”‘I!\l”‘

-Ina:-I \…\._(unr an l’\f\l\lVl’Ill\l’\ IIIVJII wvvnl an I\l’|ll!VrlIl1!\r| uuan \,I.;q.;|\: V;

such, question cf either reinstating
the post: which he had bald, _

awarding any hack wages to V1;;E.m

benefits 5.3 not possible.

11. In the circuzastar:z:e§sL:;”-.,:_=’urk;ilé” ¢f:§x1f£;rming
the order: passed Court, the

petiticn is di.*miss:a::i–…jjw V