{"id":254014,"date":"2010-08-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumtaz-ahamed-so-abdul-khader-vs-the-divisional-controller-ksrtc-on-24-august-2010"},"modified":"2016-06-20T05:31:47","modified_gmt":"2016-06-20T00:01:47","slug":"mumtaz-ahamed-so-abdul-khader-vs-the-divisional-controller-ksrtc-on-24-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumtaz-ahamed-so-abdul-khader-vs-the-divisional-controller-ksrtc-on-24-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mumtaz Ahamed S\/O Abdul Khader vs The Divisional Controller Ksrtc on 24 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Mumtaz Ahamed S\/O Abdul Khader vs The Divisional Controller Ksrtc on 24 August, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy<\/div>\n
 '  .[I3y':\u00a7ri  shgkar,' 'Ad\\}.]\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF AUGUST 201s\n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HON'BLE MRJUSTZCE RAM  T A'     \n\nWRIT PETITION No. 1 1357 \/12009  if\n\nAND\n\nMIsc.W. No.\"'7S:G-4\/2OI'OV_   1\nIN W.P.N0.V ieii_357\u00a2'2oo9 V(S.--i{SRTC-I \n\nBETWEEN :\n\nMumtaz Ahamed j  1:  ____ H\nS\/o. Abdul.  . 1\n\nAge 54 yeairsl---V1\".;__  H  ~  \nWorkingi\u00e9si Traf\ufb01\u00e9fiiicontroller  V\n\nK.S.R.\"3f.C,,--NV g~2,:a.1\u00e9nga1s.'vvDepot\nMandya-.Divis1on\"V'f,_'~  \nMandya   \n...PETI'l'IONER\n\n(common)\n\n1. Tirle  Controller\nK.S..R,VT.C., Mandya Division\n_[Mandya\n\n.' -*Ftu1\"e Divisional Controller\n; K.S.R.T.C., Tumkur Kolar Division\n\n Tumkur\n RESPONDENTS<\/pre>\n
(common)<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
[By Smt. H. R. Renuka and
\nSri Hareesh Bhandary T., Advs.)<\/p>\n
This W.}?. is \ufb01led under Articles 226 <\/p>\n
the Constitution of India praying to  <\/p>\n
impugned endorsement dt. 4\/2\/2008,  * 2 <\/p>\n
passed by the R2 and etc.<\/p>\n
This Misc.W. appIica:ti0r1 isisieap <\/p>\n
CPC to dispose the Writ Peti’tion in temissr the order
\npassed by this Hor1’~b_le Courtj\u00e9 irr.._pW.P.’Nos’;’ 24205..
\n24208 \/ 1990, since the’t:o..att’erf’:is covered by decision.<\/p>\n
This W.~P.”3ai1d  on for orders
\nthis day, the itlae ‘flolioxvingz<\/p>\n
oV\u00a7pfoRDER<\/p>\n
_Thou’g.h   is listed for orders, with the<\/p>\n
 ‘  _Acol-.isent.tAViofthe AA1V’\u20ac\u00a73J*i”}’\u20acd Counsel for the parties, is \ufb01nally<\/p>\n
   :.disposed of by this order.\n<\/p>\n
 2;—V:A.Petitioner’s name was included in the select list<\/p>\n
it  Badli’ Conductors in the respondent–Corporation on<\/p>\n
—   1982 and removed from the list on 1\/ 7\/ 1983. In<\/p>\n
  light of the reported opinion of the Apex Court in<\/p>\n
Govindaraju’s case, respondent–Corporation issued a<\/p>\n
jet<\/p>\n
cir5cu1ar dt. 1\/ 10\/ 1986, Annex.E, to reinstate the
\npetitioner amongst others, whence by endorsement dt.<\/p>\n
12\/7\/2007, the petitioners name was restored’-\ufb01vith<\/p>\n
effect from 18\/6\/ 1983 which when called  <\/p>\n
was quashed by order dt. 2\/11  in if<\/p>\n
W.P.11822\/O7 and the proceedings <\/p>\n
consideration in the light “‘paragA’rap1isu\u00bbofj then’<\/p>\n
circular, Annex.E. ThereafteI1riards..p’in cotnpliance with
\nthe order, the responded: ieededipceerderdt 4\/2\/2008,<\/p>\n
AnneX.A, setting v..out;:”the Czlauses 1 82: 2 of<\/p>\n
Annex;Et;”i’circiu1arf;\u00a7 “were.”-conn”s”id’ered and the petitioner
\nwas extended sedL:edtyp i’cr:e1n 18\/6\/1983 while denying<\/p>\n
the petitionerV_Vba.ckWage”s,V extended continuity of service<\/p>\n
‘3″~..fo1~~.’:tiie2,.’*-purposeHofterminal benefits only. Hence this<\/p>\n
    the following reliefs:\n<\/p>\n
A   a Writ or order in the nature of writ
\n‘~  of certiorari quashing the impugned
\nendorsement Vide No. KST\/TMK\/EST\/
\nEST\/E-3\/5403\/O7-08 dated 4\/2\/2008<\/p>\n
vide Annex.A, passed by the 2nd<\/p>\n
respondent;\n<\/p>\n
\n
‘ bl issue a writ or order in the nature of Writ
\nof mandamus directing the respondent–
\nCorporation to treat the petitioner as had”-.__>
\nbeen placed on probation. E   _ _4
\nw.e.f.18\/6\/1983 and fix the 1333’\/_’.-\u00a7V_:’SH'(‘3″.Ei’d_’i”\u00a7’,.:’p:’i:
\nand seniority from 18\/ 6\/ 1983 and ._ it
\nthe difference of arnoun’tdirorn,.Vthe W
\nreinstatement ie.,  it :1  1987
\nonwards under 9    the d 7     <\/p>\n
circumstances of the  and” .. .1′<\/p>\n
c] Pass such othere’ordei*V:as’V’to eciosts as this
\nI-Ion’b1e. court”‘dee’mVs* ._fit_ tinder the facts<\/p>\n
andcii\u00a7e1,irn.s:’tariices of ‘the-vcase in the
\n intei*iest_’of’;’usti’ce and equity.<\/p>\n
  for petitioner contends that<\/p>\n
 ‘-v.,c1at3:segA–.t1  of\ufb02thecircular, Ar1nex.E, are not complied<\/p>\n
  he  to the learned Counsel, the petitioner<\/p>\n
ought  placed on probation with effect from<\/p>\n
~18\/6\/19’83 with appropriate pay scales and seniority as<\/p>\n
   date of reinstatement and to pay the differences<\/p>\n
   Wages from 11.3.87 the date of reinstatement up to<\/p>\n
    it<\/p>\n
4. Per contra, learned Counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondent~Corporation points out to the V-order,<\/p>\n
Annex.A, impugned, to contend that <\/p>\n
cannot have any grievance over the \ufb01xa’ti.onf_iof this <\/p>\n
seniority with effect from  <\/p>\n
entitlement to backwages for-A lithe  <\/p>\n
18 \/ 6 \/ 1983 onwards or contiriuity  of service since<\/p>\n
extended only for punpose ci_f”bene\ufb01ts.”V<\/p>\n
5. leai:ned’;@3ounsel for the
\nparties and   p’i”eadin.gs, what essentially<\/p>\n
emerges is that,–tV..the ‘cir’c1..1__l-.).r-‘, Annex.E, provides for re-
\nengagingthe servi’c’e,s\u00bb–ol”‘.such of those conductors borne<\/p>\n
on selectof the Badlis and removed during the<\/p>\n
  1Q8~3.’\ufb01Fh\u20ac relevant terms are as follows:<\/p>\n
  Employees whose names<\/p>\n
 have been removed from the Select List
\na  Zwithout conducting a disciplinary inquiry
\nand whose cases are covered by the
\ndecision of the Supreme Court in S.
\nGOVINDARAJLVS case, shall be<\/p>\n
reinstated into service forthwith and their<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
seniority will be counted in the respective<\/p>\n
Divisions where they are allotted to work.<\/p>\n
2. If any junior person\/s has\/have <\/p>\n
appointed to the substantive    <\/p>\n
probationer, then the Peti’tione_r-Vl’ it
\nEmployee, who has bee-nrremoved  <\/p>\n
should be appointed.’  probation”i’t.\\.._j’\u00b0V_A<\/p>\n
against a substantive vacancy.”\n<\/p>\n
6. Thus the rein-statement._o,f”the petitioner into
\nservice necessarily reguiredvV._fi:\u00a7irigvVofjyseniority in the
\ndivision where lltielgwgas a.llotted._Workw”and if any of his
\njuniors were to substantive posts, as
\nprobationersi, V in tliatifevent, petitioner ought to be<\/p>\n
appointed onlnprobation against a substantive vacancy.<\/p>\n
  petitioner’s seniority is construed from<\/p>\n
 ‘A1-‘ggdlnot seriously disputed and therefore<\/p>\n
 “seniority as on 18\/ 6\/1983, cannot be found<\/p>\n
V’ V ‘  ff fault<\/p>\n
7. The next requirement is, to ascertain whether<\/p>\n
the petitioner is appointed on probation against a<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
substantive vacancy, if any of his junior is appointed to<\/p>\n
such a post as a probationer. This aspect of the <\/p>\n
though not forthcoming from the order,  <\/p>\n
has the learned Counsel for _respondentlf\ufb01florporationitit<\/p>\n
able to establish that c1ause~2  the <\/p>\n
is complied with, there is’no’*n%eces’si.ty’ for.:an”enq’uiry,”‘<\/p>\n
since there is no dispute 0ver”th_e– fixing of seniority from<\/p>\n
18.6.1983.\n<\/p>\n
8.   pleadings, the
\n  non–\ufb01xing of the pay
\nsca1e,:’-gthe  of certain amount of
\nwages  from 11\/3\/1987, the<\/p>\n
dat.3%jA:lot’i’reinstaternent, up to date. This contention of<\/p>\n
_pe,t_itione’r must stand negated since the petitioner<\/p>\n
tolllestablish the pay scale which he was<\/p>\n
 entitledtoon reinstatement or to what amount is due to<\/p>\n
 hirri-..duVe to alleged wrong fixation of the pay scale. In<\/p>\n
.’ the absence of relevant material constituting substantial<\/p>\n
legal evidence of that fact in issue, it is not convenient<\/p>\n
to adjudicate upon that controversy in exercise of<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226<\/a> of The
\nConstitution of India. More over, the petitioner has an<\/p>\n
alternative and efficacious remedy by in.sti’tiit.i_ng<\/p>\n
appropriate legal proceedings before the <\/p>\n
courts’\/forum under the Industrialp_I)isp1ites:Act;: t” V<\/p>\n
to have his grievance redressed ;ancE_f_’he’nce, this <\/p>\n
must necessarily fail. Petition-.is acc’o1fciin_giy rejectetl.<\/p>\n
Rd\/–<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Mumtaz Ahamed S\/O Abdul Khader vs The Divisional Controller Ksrtc on 24 August, 2010 Author: Ram Mohan Reddy ‘ .[I3y’:\u00a7ri shgkar,’ ‘Ad\\}.] IN THE HIGH COURT OF’ KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF AUGUST 201s BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRJUSTZCE RAM T A’ WRIT PETITION No. 1 1357 \/12009 if […]<\/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-254014","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMumtaz Ahamed S\/O Abdul Khader vs The Divisional Controller Ksrtc on 24 August, 2010 - 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\/mumtaz-ahamed-so-abdul-khader-vs-the-divisional-controller-ksrtc-on-24-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mumtaz Ahamed S\/O Abdul Khader vs The Divisional Controller Ksrtc on 24 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumtaz-ahamed-so-abdul-khader-vs-the-divisional-controller-ksrtc-on-24-august-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-08-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-20T00:01:47+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\\\/mumtaz-ahamed-so-abdul-khader-vs-the-divisional-controller-ksrtc-on-24-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mumtaz-ahamed-so-abdul-khader-vs-the-divisional-controller-ksrtc-on-24-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mumtaz Ahamed S\\\/O Abdul Khader vs The Divisional Controller Ksrtc on 24 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-20T00:01:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mumtaz-ahamed-so-abdul-khader-vs-the-divisional-controller-ksrtc-on-24-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1004,\"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\\\/mumtaz-ahamed-so-abdul-khader-vs-the-divisional-controller-ksrtc-on-24-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mumtaz-ahamed-so-abdul-khader-vs-the-divisional-controller-ksrtc-on-24-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mumtaz-ahamed-so-abdul-khader-vs-the-divisional-controller-ksrtc-on-24-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Mumtaz Ahamed S\\\/O Abdul Khader vs The Divisional Controller Ksrtc on 24 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-20T00:01:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mumtaz-ahamed-so-abdul-khader-vs-the-divisional-controller-ksrtc-on-24-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mumtaz-ahamed-so-abdul-khader-vs-the-divisional-controller-ksrtc-on-24-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mumtaz-ahamed-so-abdul-khader-vs-the-divisional-controller-ksrtc-on-24-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mumtaz Ahamed S\\\/O Abdul Khader vs The Divisional Controller Ksrtc on 24 August, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Mumtaz Ahamed S\/O Abdul Khader vs The Divisional Controller Ksrtc on 24 August, 2010 - 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\/mumtaz-ahamed-so-abdul-khader-vs-the-divisional-controller-ksrtc-on-24-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mumtaz Ahamed S\/O Abdul Khader vs The Divisional Controller Ksrtc on 24 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumtaz-ahamed-so-abdul-khader-vs-the-divisional-controller-ksrtc-on-24-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-20T00:01:47+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\/mumtaz-ahamed-so-abdul-khader-vs-the-divisional-controller-ksrtc-on-24-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumtaz-ahamed-so-abdul-khader-vs-the-divisional-controller-ksrtc-on-24-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mumtaz Ahamed S\/O Abdul Khader vs The Divisional Controller Ksrtc on 24 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-20T00:01:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumtaz-ahamed-so-abdul-khader-vs-the-divisional-controller-ksrtc-on-24-august-2010"},"wordCount":1004,"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\/mumtaz-ahamed-so-abdul-khader-vs-the-divisional-controller-ksrtc-on-24-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumtaz-ahamed-so-abdul-khader-vs-the-divisional-controller-ksrtc-on-24-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumtaz-ahamed-so-abdul-khader-vs-the-divisional-controller-ksrtc-on-24-august-2010","name":"Mumtaz Ahamed S\/O Abdul Khader vs The Divisional Controller Ksrtc on 24 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-20T00:01:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumtaz-ahamed-so-abdul-khader-vs-the-divisional-controller-ksrtc-on-24-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumtaz-ahamed-so-abdul-khader-vs-the-divisional-controller-ksrtc-on-24-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumtaz-ahamed-so-abdul-khader-vs-the-divisional-controller-ksrtc-on-24-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mumtaz Ahamed S\/O Abdul Khader vs The Divisional Controller Ksrtc on 24 August, 2010"}]},{"@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\/254014","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=254014"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/254014\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=254014"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=254014"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=254014"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}