High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri B C Ananda S/O … vs The General Manager on 29 October, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri B C Ananda S/O … vs The General Manager on 29 October, 2010
Author: Jawad Rahim


[…..Je

In was met: serum’ 9:: xammmmxr 8AR6§£§R.£

warm new we 29?” may aw ecros£r_;ia4,*’Agf-=.J. 4_ ‘

I» A No.

sgmcmmna I
9! (:3 (:3 A1*£3’&Wfis.; ‘ ‘ V’ _
A.aEnAmm49YmmA%%kMkL}%v.k
110,997, mm smss, gym %
smsmafi, f *
E&R’t’.§AL4DREE4§é”£}._ ‘

fi;?PELL!§.1″£’I’

%%%%%

%m§%%G”m:émL xmrgzn

%
mwr

A Q} §§,. YAm§Fa

.. ‘ are 3- wgaryapya
‘ = gagsn men? 49 YEA?-.3
R11?!’ ARDARLAEALLI
c mmRA ‘Im,zJK RE$i’*GE’DE2~ETS

%% A §'(By Smt. : sammamm Fm R3

$2 I$ smavmarzm UR’%PRE8EI*3TE§}
3

J

&\:},/

mm nma F333 3:3 :3?3g1} Q}? Ma; ACT’,

THE mmmmzwr was Awanfi BATEB __fi£5′.’£.i,’,;-2Qe.3_ _
PAESEE 11%’ mm rmxaezifieaz ma ‘rm: ;=%13;?,E=j=<x;3F's:*I_" "
AIBBYFIQKAI. am & msmm, ?:ei5E""i'R£¥.? QL1'.?Afi '*
AREA, BAHGALQRE, scczm, P§§R'§°£'&' -xém. .
sum mrmax ma ceswER*&&::*:m9;T' _'s5;E17m§:3.j

Emmcamrm ma e3oa@mgxz*z§ekk%A%» m::& §a:¥¥1sswre
ALGNGWH74 }:..A.NO. 7’§?’HI5*- u §315§Y, YHE CQ{.§RT
asweaes ms FGL§.fi1%:’IV!%2§Gj:é__ n *

‘gm 31:. against; the
;5Qi1.2m3 ma. me file of
Motér Amgsgats E, 3c:c§–:*2, Bangaiere in

MVE Isfizzn erzixfiwmsant.

is mam am has am; am after

An apfificatisfi under Swtisn 5 af

Limaaarm Am: £3 Em mmg mndanatian. fir’:

V. _» é supparfim 1&1] Q? is by tha apmliarzt, in
he has awred that aftm j f was 3
V fhc milactm the fudgnacnt ané award azkfi kept the saw

inhfihnusaarxdéuemsififtfngfiamwnieéfwuaaem

av»

3
his awn image, he mfwplaeeci the judgmni. anfi award.

In these cfimuwtazma; ha muid mt

mvmm w file an appeal. was £3 {ha eniy

in €113 agpiimtioiz. Etm if aueh

thmve $13 11:: mcplauafimn

than four years, rm

gape:-3 car to nbtain fimh far
mndazfiag auch 21$” fézffizrzggmfiag.

3. Hawmmg I muzrmai m

addrmwrm if-.3-:-=,.V_13:i;. E’;=I;v*.v’i# flat the agpeflant
hafi as cfiaiw ‘bu have wen
h5spitaJia$&”««for 16? éayss, fin that ground,

Z arm} in aupwrt sf Efi

T. ‘ –_-w:,am;:’15ad. mmsaefi’ and 2% Events.

{ha namre sf Eflgures, thy: pained ef

and the arm dmumtsnm: am

has awardeé ?25,e9§;- tawarfis amfi

Qfiggfib fczwarzia “logs sf ftxturae “§

% §’%5,9m;-« mwaras “inciamzaz chagw”, t29,am;-

tcwards mim nt of ” mtmmmfl

€19″

«:2
¥6§,&5fi/~ mwards “ms sf ” in 931% ¥ 3:333}?-.§fi{-
22 is savermzi that me Tribunal has mm in H

snfim’ 22:: mrfizmafian tswardz gpeam” 3i L’ K

and “less sf Emmi But on V
is mfimfi Erxat 325333}- is;
aufimag” e.mé:5,<30$;-

tribune} Zfm  
rerimhursemm, V asf    wifimut
as  '     the

claimant reimbt:raemex1t (if
thae ta wfiich he Eu 3
§re:ef’ that he was mt
paid 4fo:,V’V cf hnsgxtalisaflan arid thus

beafi an exéémxzw. If tiwae

% k.§;:§astaa tnwafi “pair: am awerm ané

_ “ms ;”sf ‘ .,§’:’nes” “, the award Q mast rwnmbh, Since

‘ ;rm1:>1dz¢;d¢n’£:s have met qusmfimneci fim ssma, dwpitm

that the award is an the aiée, E do mt

AT : . itS£::1t ta’ .-irzwfsre, The clama’ rxt alwuki aatisifsr himselfts

V the gezmus award rathm timn qumfisnixg the same.

dU3,z/

3

Bwidm, mm is my stzmtrient mum smwnV.-rfsr

the delay af 33% fiays. Thai $313}: V

cxcxfiganarig Am;-amt,’ 3 I.&.Ij{1′? 33 regm” ;:~1;f[

: an quwtianrn. of Ii§’1tia.’:’:€:fi

mm, tlw appeal is dismisagif

“nm;’«–