Dismissed

Sri. Rudramuni v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Oct 2012WP/35560/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the dismissal of the petitioner's work engagement. Withholding specific facts regarding the legality of termination, the court declined to issue directions compelling the authorities to permit the petitioner to work. Instead, the petitioner was advised to seek statutory remedies for dues or service continuation if applicable.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri. Rudramuni Vs State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

WP No.35560/2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2012

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBHASH B ADI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.35560 OF 2011 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. RUDRAMUNI S/O RUDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS WATERMAN R/O BOGANAHALLY VILLAGE THALAK HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SUMANTH L. BHARADWAJ, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT BANGALORE

¶13

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYAT CHITRADURGA

¶14

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYAT CHALLAKERE

¶15

THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DEVAREDDYHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT

¶16

WP No.35560/2011

¶17

¶18

5. THE SECRETARY DEVAREDDYHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT

¶19

... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(SRI.RAGHAVENDRA G.GAYATRI, HCGP FOR R1 SRI.C.SHIVAKUMAR, ADV. FOR R2 AND R3)

¶21

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to carry on his work in accordance with law and etc. This Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:-

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Sri.C.Shivakumar, learned counsel is directed to take notice for the respondent No.2.

¶24

There is no order as such passed by any of the respondents. The petitioner's grievance is that, he is not allowed to work.

¶25

If the petitioner is on temporary employment and if his engagement has come to an end, he could seek appropriate remedy as per law. No directions could be issued to permit the petitioner to work in accordance with law. As such, I do not find any reason to issue directions. However, if

¶26

WP No.35560/2011

¶27

¶28

the petitioner is in service as temporary employee and if his services is needed by the employer, they may continue his

¶29

services. Further, if any salary is due, it is open to the

¶30

petitioner to recover the same.

¶31

Accordingly, petition is dismissed.

¶32

Sri.C.Shivakumar, learned counsel for respondent

¶33

No.2 is permitted to file vakalath within two weeks.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

Sri. Rudramuni v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri. Rudramuni v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Puspanjali M C Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

Sri Manjunath Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation

Shilpa B P Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Somashekar Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr N Ramalinge Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

The National Insurance Company Limited Vs Rajendra Kumar