Allowed

Sri Omanna S/O Maruti Gondakar v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC18 May 2023WP/102545/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a traffic controller seeking continuation of services in an alternative post due to injury. The court directed the second respondent to consider the representation within four weeks and restrained discontinuing services pending the outcome.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed; second respondent directed to consider representation within four weeks; respondents restrained from discontinuing petitioner's services pending outcome.

Sri Omanna S/O Maruti Gondakar Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 102545 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 102545 OF 2023 (S-KSRTC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI OMANNA S/O MARUTI GONDAKAR AGE.54 YEARS, OCC. TRAFFIC CONTROLLER (ALTERNATIVE POST) AT N.W.K.R.T.C., RAMADURG DEPOT, RAMADURG, TQ. RAMADURG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591123

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI M S HARAVI, ADVOCATE.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICES GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI DIST. DHARWAD-580009

¶14

CHANDRASHEKARLAXMANKATTIMANI Digitally signed byCHANDRASHEKARLAXMANKATTIMANILocation:DHARWADDate: 2023.05.1817:47:16 -0700

¶15

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION BELAGAVI DIVISION BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590002

¶16

THE DEPOT MANAGER NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION RAMADURG DEPOT, RAMADURG-591123 TQ. RAMADURG, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRASHANT S. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE.)

¶18

¶19

WP No. 102545 of 2023

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO ISSUE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONTINUE THE SERVICES OF THE PETITIONER IN THE ALTERNATIVE POST AT 3^RD RESPONDENT DEPOT BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY HIM DATED 13.03.2023, VIDE ANNEXURE-E, ETC.,.

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Captioned writ petition is filed by petitioner, who was

¶24

appointed as Driver-cum-Conductor with respondent corporation. On account of grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner, the petitioner on assessment by the competent doctor was advised to do a lighter job.

¶25

The petitioner claims that he has submitted a detailed representation to the respondents requesting to continue the services of the petitioner in the alternate post by considering the representation dated 13.03.2023, vide Annexure-E.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent corporation on instruction has made a statement that if

¶27

¶28

WP No. 102545 of 2023

¶29

reasonable time is granted, respondents will consider the representation submitted by the petitioner, vide

¶30

Annexure-E and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶31

Statement made by the standing counsel for

¶32

respondent corporation is taken on record.

¶33

For the reasons stated supra, I proceed to pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶36

ii) The 2^nd respondent is hereby directed to consider the representation of petitioner dated 13.03.2023, vide Annexure-E, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law.

¶37

¶38

WP No. 102545 of 2023

¶39

iii) Pending consideration of the writ petition, the respondents are directed not to discontinue the services of the petitioner, till appropriate orders are passed in accordance with law.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

MRK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Sri Omanna S/O Maruti Gondakar v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Omanna S/O Maruti Gondakar v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandrashekhar S/O Gurulingappa Mayakar Vs Dharmanagouda S/O Bheemanagouda Patil

Subramani Urf Mani S/O. Nagabushan Vs the State of Karnataka

H R Prabhakara Murthy Vs Sowbhagyamma

Smt Gangutai D/O Goudappa Naganuri Vs the Managing Director

Sri. Murulidhar S/O. Maruti Patil Vs Sri. Sachin S/O. Mohan Kallimani

Smt. Kadiramma Vs State of Karnataka