High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri D R Malleshappa vs State Of Karnataka on 9 December, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri D R Malleshappa vs State Of Karnataka on 9 December, 2010
Author: V.Jagannathan
 1'  R'O'I_I,O\IyING:

 Of t}I.ev..-Short point involved after learned Government

A' {fxdvbcate was directed to take notice for the

%  E .. Tesponderxts. 9/

Ix.)

(HIGHER EDUCATION}, M S BUILDING,
BAN{}ALORE~560 001.

2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR
COLLEGLATE EDUCATION,   
SHESHADRI ROAD, BANGALORE".

   .

(By STIJAGADISH MUNDARG_IL*f§:.A.}  V _ ,  

THESE wps FILED PRAYING TO  QUAS?H THE
PORTION OF THE. IM}{?UG.NF.D~.._ ORDER JDATED
15.10.2009 AS PER .I\.NN.EXURE~B--« S'1T'RULAT1NG IN THE
ORDER PORTION   }REE3FECT OF' OTHER
TEACHING COM1vIUNITY.'_ f THE--.f_~ _ AGE OF
SUPERANNUATIQN SE~IAI;Lv.CO1'JTINUE  BE 60 YEARS
ONLY", IN Si3,_."FA'R :AS" PETITIONERS ARE
CONCERNED, II_OI..DvING  SAME ILLEGAL, BAD IN
LAW, ARBITRARY '"TONE;--DIS.c:RIMINATORY AND THUS
VTOLATTVEOE ART'IC_LE_"1<L OR THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA" A'ND}f.ALSjO' ACgAINST"'"TO THE LETTER OF
GOvERNMENT,~~»OI«*I V IND;£A- DATED 31.12.2008 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A..  "  

;' ''THESE'* .__"'P'ETI'TIONS COMING ON FOR
RRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COIIRT MADE

ORDER

All petitions are disposed Of finally in View

2. Submission of the petitioners counsei».

C.R.Gopa1aswamy is that, the age of retireirient_’fiyas-____’ _

raised from 60 to 62 years in respect of’the:’teaching.e_ ‘*

Community of the University drawing.

in respect of the other teaehirig co’mm1ini’ty,’ the…sa’n’1e

benefit has not been extended’»des.pite..direetion given
by the Govemmerit:i’g.of’.g. letter dated

31.12.2008 [A_nnexurie’¥B);1

3. ._.i;ea:fn_-;_d~ie:o1i1a_se1.._4-also stibmitted that this

court__in given direction to
consider; the petitioner therein.

4. In t}’ie”4iigi1tA”ef ‘ the above submission made

and ieiamed.’ ‘Goyernment Advocate also submitting

~ that in fact a communication from the

‘f}o\-*ernmIente:=V’ of India to consider the age of

superanniiation being raised to 62 years and this

ieourt having given direction aecordingiy in severai

Viwrit petitions earlier, the representations of the

petitioners therefore need to be considered by the

£6

r