{"id":185592,"date":"2009-10-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-v-kamatar-vs-the-management-of-north-east-on-20-october-2009"},"modified":"2018-08-09T13:05:38","modified_gmt":"2018-08-09T07:35:38","slug":"santosh-v-kamatar-vs-the-management-of-north-east-on-20-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-v-kamatar-vs-the-management-of-north-east-on-20-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Santosh V Kamatar vs The Management Of North East … on 20 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Santosh V Kamatar vs The Management Of North East … on 20 October, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. \n\nDATED THIS THE 20\"! DAY OF OCTOBER * \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUsT1cE;'IRA'_1yi  \n\nWRIT PETITION NO.15068 Ox\u00e9zoos D  _\n\nBETWEEN\n\nSANTOSH V KAMATAR  _  , .\n\nS\/O. LATE SR1. VEERUPAX  \n\nAGED ABOUT 24 YEARS  V  *\n\nR\/AT POST R AKURAI~rIATI'I\"\n\nTALUK NAVALGUND  I   \nDISTRICT:      PETITIONER\n\n[BY SR1. V'  &\"r\u00a2;A1:\\%;;},;1 LAN KULKARNI, ADV}\nAND: 1 D A \n\nTHE MA:\\IAGEMEN'f'0:F*' \n\nNORTH EAST KARNATAKA ROAD\n\nTRANSPORT CORPORATION\nKOF:PAL' DNISIOMKOPPAL\n\n'  REI1'3.BY\"ITSA.I')IVISIONAL CONTROLLER.  RESPONDENT\n\n V'  VRETTTION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227\nOF'--.'1\"TE~IE JOORSTITOTION OF 1ND}_A PRAYING TO QUASH\n\n ENDQRSEMENT DATED 8.9.08, THE ORIGINAL OF\nWHICH\" IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANN\u00bb\n\n -  THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRL.HB',ARING\nT'-N 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE\n\n   F\"OLLOWING :T l\n\n\u00e9\n\n:.\n\nL\n\n\"'\\\n\n\n\nORDER\n<\/pre>\n
Petitioner’s father. while working as a <\/p>\n
respondent ~v-~ Corporation, was terrninated’-frorn. service <\/p>\n
on 26-07-1999 for acts of: deaf it<\/p>\n
unauthorised absence from _dutjf’for*.the  froijn<\/p>\n
094997 to 22-12-1997.  order.:’w’hen:’;\u00a7ca11ed in<\/p>\n
question in \/  Court,
\nHubli, was con\ufb01rmed 20-11-2002.
\nPetitioners  filed  calling in
\nquestion  by order dated 2-8-\n<\/p>\n
2o07, __ was allowed and the
\norder oiethe  quashed with a direction to<\/p>\n
reinstate the ._\\_}Vorkrnan with continuity of service and<\/p>\n
  bene\ufb01ts, without backwages. That order<\/p>\n
  on the date of the order, the father<\/p>\n
 the ‘”i9etitioner was reported to be dead.<\/p>\n
9   “I’i1.erea’fterwards, by order dated 29-11-2007 Annexure–<\/p>\n
 a learned Single Judge, quashed the award of the<\/p>\n
it  “Labour Court entitling the LRS of the deceased workmen<\/p>\n
is<\/p>\n
;=
\nL\/<\/p>\n
to benefits, including continuity of service–___ and<\/p>\n
consequential bene\ufb01ts Without backwagee\ufb02E”-hf\u00e9while<\/p>\n
concluding, the learned Single Judge 0bserited.thu”ef  H<\/p>\n
“(3}- V .. ._
\nTaking into consideration A’ the ‘  V ” \u00ab .  in
\nservice rendered by t}:1_e=.dece’a’sed : _
\nthe gravity of the’t’V~.._:ch_{:1rge”– iatnjd the
\nexplanation,  ._ caste where’ the
\nLabour Court  V”e\u00a7;1e3fcised the
\ndiscretion  undwer ‘ ::V::Se’ct.i;on   of the
\n if  ‘”ILabour Court,
\nwithou–;ii_”thAe rnatterial on record,
\n  indvrejecting the claim of<\/p>\n
the de’ce\u00e9;Sed d –= pdevtitioner. ”<\/p>\n
 The __petitiv’c)r1er, claiming to have a right to<\/p>\n
,A ‘comp\u00e9issiorxate appointment, made a representation<\/p>\n
  Ar1nexure–“D” which when rejected by<\/p>\n
 ., ‘”res.pon’dent, has presented this petition.<\/p>\n
 en:do1’\u00e9’ement dated 8-9-2008 Annexure-“E” of the<\/p>\n
N<\/p>\n
3. The contention of Sri. V.S. Naik, learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner that the award C0I1fil’:1’l’1i1′:..1_.”i\u00abf_%.”\ufb02A1\u20ac<\/p>\n
order of dismissal when quashed entitling <\/p>\n
representatives of the deceased ‘Wo-rkrn_en_.to’:.r;ontinuity ‘<\/p>\n
of service, consequential bene\ufb01ts without”r.ei11stat.g\u00a7’n1e’Iit<\/p>\n
and backwages, one of the~v..legal   to and<\/p>\n
appointment on coinVpassl’onate’VTgrounds;” cannot be
\ncountenance-d. I saajrlh  learned Single
\nJudge, in  with the
\n\ufb01nding of absence, but that
\nthe  as contrasted from a
\ncase  is held to be illegal and Void.<\/p>\n
Thyis’; t.depl{)yingV”the jnrisdiction under Art.226 of the<\/p>\n
 \u00ab\ufb02voristitutionvof India, (Sec.114 of the ID Act] the learned<\/p>\n
 .Singles;J’_Li_d\u00a7e””interfered with the award of the Labour<\/p>\n
Co’urt*f:  directed the LR’s to be entitled to<\/p>\n
  ‘*consecjuentia3 bene\ufb01ts and continuity of service, in the<\/p>\n
 of the number of years of service rendered by the<\/p>\n
it “deceased workman. In other words, the order of<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
termination of service which “was upheld by the Labour<\/p>\n
Court was not set–aside as a consequeijic’e.VV”0f’\u00bbi.the<\/p>\n
workman being exonerated or being foundWn:otjV’guiit.y  V’ <\/p>\n
the misconduct. In this  of *. the-3 <\/p>\n
petitioner cannot claim a right in tlaw for..”a.ppointin’ent*i.g<\/p>\n
on compassionate grounds.’ a\u00bb\n<\/p>\n
4. In the circuinsta_h~\ufb01’gSe.:\/ths’-..Qbseri}ation of the
\nApex Court in  Vs. K. P.\n<\/p>\n
AGRAWAL 52 A;\u00a7ii\u00a7.1g  app’osi’te::V  is <\/p>\n
 iiii
\n _’ ._ –  under Article 226 or
\nSieettion industrial Disputes Act
\ng._(or a;fiy:Vo’therA”siriii1ar provision} is exercised
\n   ‘C-,’-surt to interfere with the
\n}L3A’v1ZiI1i’E’;V1″‘)L’i’I1’\u20ac1″l1L on the ground that it is
\n and the employee deserves a lesser
\npunishment, and a consequential direction
\n“isA’1issued for reinstatement, the Court is not
\nit  holding that the employer was in the wrong<\/p>\n
it or that the dismissal was illegai and invalid.<\/p>\n
‘ .2007 AIR sew 1357
\nE<\/p>\n
The Court is merely exercising its discretion
\nto award a lesser punishment. Till such<\/p>\n
power is exercised, the dismissal is valid and<\/p>\n
in force. When the punishment is reduced<\/p>\n
by a Court as being excessive, there can\u00abb;e\u00ab._.l_l’~._<\/p>\n
either a direction for reinstatement 5 .;. <\/p>\n
direction for a nominal  <\/p>\n
compensation. And if’-“r’ei’nstaten_1ejnt’._ iVs’-7: in<\/p>\n
directed, it can be  <\/p>\n
prospectively from  the ‘date V  <\/p>\n
substitution of punishment (in W-hitch’: event,
\nthere is no V continiiityilj of.’ service)” or
\nretrospectively, from  idatawhich the<\/p>\n
Zpenaityii, of”7’fVter_rni;nation’Wwas imposed, (in
\n ‘everityithe1:e””c_an be a consequential<\/p>\n
direction “r\u00a2i’aiing”‘_.\u00bbiio continuity of service}.<\/p>\n
;’W7hat Vreq_uiresV’to be noted in cases where<\/p>\n
 \ufb01ridiitig of rniscvonduct is affirmed and only<\/p>\n
 \u00a7’_11’_~\u00a7,\u00a7_;_imQ~4[2*1::;lv1’.-liShI’I11E31’1Jf is interfered with (as<\/p>\n
 coritigtsted from cases where termination is<\/p>\n
h-elci*t”o be illegal or void} is that there is no<\/p>\n
automatic reinstatement; and if<\/p>\n
reinstatement is directed. it is not<\/p>\n
automaticallv with retrospective effect from<\/p>\n
the date of termination. Therefore, where<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
reinstatement is a consequence of imposition<\/p>\n
of a lesser punishment, neither l:>ack~wages<\/p>\n
nor continuity of service nor consequential
\nbenefits, follow as a natural or necessary
\nconsequence of such reinstatement.
\ncases where the misconduct is held
\nproved, and reinstatement is H_’itselfif.a4 ‘A
\nconsequential bene\ufb01t arising from
\nof a lesser punishment, award’  ii”
\nfor the period When;-mhe en:.ol’oveee.’lri’asv: _not_:’\u00a7
\nworked, mav arnounit\ufb01lto re”w.ar’cling.’:’;:the
\ndelinquent ernplovee”  it lmlnishi\ufb01g V the
\nemnlover for     _ for the<\/p>\n
  ‘ comrlnittedl  lav the employee.
\nThat  Similarly, in such
\ncases,” evenll\u00e9lvviiere\ufb01continuity of service is<\/p>\n
“‘directed,,shVould only be for purposes of
\n pensionarv\/’retirement benefits, and not for
\n  bene\ufb01ts like increments, promotions,
\n‘ ease ‘ <\/p>\n
(Emphasis Supplied)<\/p>\n
 ‘A   Having regard to the aforesaid principles, the<\/p>\n
.’  ‘deceased father of the petitioner having not been<\/p>\n
 Wexonerated of the misconduct alleged, the petitioner<\/p>\n
Jrk<\/p>\n
cannot claim an appointment on compassionate ground,–‘”—-<\/p>\n
Petition is accordingiy, rejected.<\/p>\n
Sd\/~<\/p>\n
KS<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Santosh V Kamatar vs The Management Of North East … on 20 October, 2009 Author: Ram Mohan Reddy IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. DATED THIS THE 20″! DAY OF OCTOBER * THE HON’BLE MR. JUsT1cE;’IRA’_1yi WRIT PETITION NO.15068 Ox\u00e9zoos D _ BETWEEN SANTOSH V KAMATAR _ , . S\/O. LATE SR1. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-185592","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSantosh V Kamatar vs The Management Of North East ... on 20 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-v-kamatar-vs-the-management-of-north-east-on-20-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Santosh V Kamatar vs The Management Of North East ... on 20 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-v-kamatar-vs-the-management-of-north-east-on-20-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-09T07:35:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-v-kamatar-vs-the-management-of-north-east-on-20-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-v-kamatar-vs-the-management-of-north-east-on-20-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Santosh V Kamatar vs The Management Of North East … on 20 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-09T07:35:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-v-kamatar-vs-the-management-of-north-east-on-20-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":964,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-v-kamatar-vs-the-management-of-north-east-on-20-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-v-kamatar-vs-the-management-of-north-east-on-20-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-v-kamatar-vs-the-management-of-north-east-on-20-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Santosh V Kamatar vs The Management Of North East ... on 20 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-09T07:35:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-v-kamatar-vs-the-management-of-north-east-on-20-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-v-kamatar-vs-the-management-of-north-east-on-20-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-v-kamatar-vs-the-management-of-north-east-on-20-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Santosh V Kamatar vs The Management Of North East … on 20 October, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Santosh V Kamatar vs The Management Of North East ... on 20 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-v-kamatar-vs-the-management-of-north-east-on-20-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Santosh V Kamatar vs The Management Of North East ... on 20 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-v-kamatar-vs-the-management-of-north-east-on-20-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-09T07:35:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-v-kamatar-vs-the-management-of-north-east-on-20-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-v-kamatar-vs-the-management-of-north-east-on-20-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Santosh V Kamatar vs The Management Of North East … on 20 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-09T07:35:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-v-kamatar-vs-the-management-of-north-east-on-20-october-2009"},"wordCount":964,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-v-kamatar-vs-the-management-of-north-east-on-20-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-v-kamatar-vs-the-management-of-north-east-on-20-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-v-kamatar-vs-the-management-of-north-east-on-20-october-2009","name":"Santosh V Kamatar vs The Management Of North East ... on 20 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-09T07:35:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-v-kamatar-vs-the-management-of-north-east-on-20-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-v-kamatar-vs-the-management-of-north-east-on-20-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-v-kamatar-vs-the-management-of-north-east-on-20-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Santosh V Kamatar vs The Management Of North East … on 20 October, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185592","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=185592"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185592\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=185592"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=185592"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=185592"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}