iv \~ 33 A. ..... .. V
L' A "TH3£ C0§fiMiSSIONER CITY COR?ORATION
% .A __BANGALORE.
' 3* mm ?RINCIPAL
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DATED THIS THE 30TH may. OF J'§xJ"*l'\I"}§3,.: f2;i} '('}t'3v'_"A.V ' A
BEFORE ~ j x M
THE Hom3LE MR. J:rS1f1cE'AJ1T
WRIT PETITION NQ___§268=.QF 2cs06__(s)'
BETWEEN:
1 SR1 PRAKASH
BIN
ATGEEABQ 45; Yams V .
R/O. }:~:0.:z3,, 3RD "
2ND...MA1N RQAD-,_"V1JAYANAGARA
BANGAL£1)RE40 _%
PETYFIONER.
(By 3;: H 'NE-.])f{ARICA}x*,)sN'E§V, ADV. )
-I'%%%BAr:Lfl3LAQ%R'E.
2 A 'JCIEIT COMMISSIONER (ADMINISTATION)
BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALKKE
NAGARA PALIKE PRE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
MAGADI ROAD
BANGALORE.
RESPONDENTS.
2
(By Sri E V MURLIDHAR, ADV. FOR RI-3)
THIS WP FEED UNDER ARTICLES 226 0?
THE CONSTYFUTION, PRAYING TC) _;”‘QU,¢j_=a–Sk–i -THE
ENEORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE R2 a,3;23.2,2ooe,
PRODUCED AT ANN-P’ so FAR IT RELETEE 1:-oi ” THE
PEFYFIONER.
DIRECT THE REsPoNoErafre44%e*fo free”
SERVICE OF THE ;.PE’PI’F§oO$;IER””–~AS A{‘ WITH ALL
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFrrs, V ~ A E
THIS PETITION” eet:or§itIiiw{o ; FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARIANG _’ié’1’rI1£_S DAY, “COURT MADE THE
EoLLowm-3;; A % i =_
A GEEERV
apfidizited on 13.10.1995 as First
Divisio11 Clerk.Voo;:’a ‘eoi1eo’lidated salary of Rs. 2000/» per
month of one year. It is no doubt true
. V. is for a period of one year. But,
extended Rom time to time every year. The
;ie–titio;1erfhed given a representation to the respondents
them to regularise his services. Responeent—1
” _hae.u*’«rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that
fleither the rules of the Corporation nor is there any
Government Circular which would entitle the petitioner for
regularisation. mfl
{‘
2. Mr, Dharigond, learned counsel V. the
petitioner submits that having regard vjdeoisiori
Secretary, State of Karnataka ot;hers. AV
others, (2006) 4 sec 1, a:1d_ in of .eendlt,lo:2s”laid A
Clown therein, the tofleolnsider his
claim for ._ l
3. Learned for —respondent submits
that the de_<;isioi}é1'l' not applicable to the
4. file eontroversy whether the ratio
laid dowli the ciecision is applicable or not, it is
r if” “:3: vdirectiorx is issued to the respondent to
‘ ooixsjciel*’llf1is”‘elain1 for regularisation, having regard to the
by the Apex Court in Umadevifs case, that
would the ends of justice.
Consequently, the pefition stands disposed of directing
we respondent to reconsider the claim of the petitio1 r
regmadsation having regard $0 the mtio Iaic} _Tthe
Apex Court in Umadewfis case. T116;
irnpugned Carder at Armexure-K ‘A .’
Compliance within six .05 receifi
of the copy of this {>rc1e;t;j.. » . T’ I ‘
Ruiz: is issued _
A 3u&g5
“93