Sri Linganna vs the Divisional Controller

Sri Linganna vs The Divisional Controller

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Orders Decided Jan 31, 2024

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1862104

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1862104
Court: Karnataka Orders High Court
Judge: K.S. Hemalekha
Decided On: Jan 31, 2024
Case Number: WP/21117/2012

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sri Linganna

Respondent

The Divisional Controller

Excerpt

-1-in the high court of karnataka at bengalurudated this the 31st day of january, 2024 before the hon'ble mrs justice k.s. hemalekha writ petition no.21117 of 2012 (l-ksrtc) between: sri linganna s/o. andanappa, aged about 48 years, r/at no.3167, pipeline road, kumaraswamy layout, bangalore - 560 078. ... petitioner (by sri k. srinivasa, advocate) and: the divisional controller, ksrtc, bangalore central division, k.h. road, shanthinagar, bangalore - 560 027. ... respondent digitally signed (by sri b.l. sanjeev, advocate (v.c.)) by shyamalalocation: high this writ petition is filed under articles 226 and court of 227 of the constitution of india, praying to quash the karnataka impugned award passed by the first addl. labour court,bangalore in id no.138/2006, dated 12.07.2010 vide annexure-d to the writ petition; direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner back into the post of driver with continuity of service, and all other consequential benefits including full back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. this writ petition coming on for final hearing, this day, the court made the following: -2-orderlearned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition has been rendered infructuous in view of the fact that the petitioner has attained superannuation and the claim is only with regard to reinstatement. a memo is filed to that effect and the same reads as under:”the petitioner submits that the writ pet. has been rendered infructuous in view of petitioner having attained superannuation. he had claimed the benefits for the service rendered. hence, relief of reinstatement will not survive. hence, the writ petition may kindly be disposed in the above terms, to meet the ends of justice.”2. the memo is placed on record.3. in view of the submission and memo, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. sd/- judge s*

Full Judgment

-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.21117 OF 2012 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: SRI LINGANNA S/O. ANDANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.3167, PIPELINE ROAD, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 078. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI K. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, BANGALORE CENTRAL DIVISION, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027. ... RESPONDENT Digitally signed (BY SRI B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE (V.C.)) by SHYAMALA
Location: HIGH          THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
COURT OF           227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
KARNATAKA          IMPUGNED AWARD PASSED BY THE FIRST ADDL. LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE IN ID NO.138/2006, DATED 12.07.2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-D TO THE WRIT PETITION; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER BACK INTO THE POST OF DRIVER WITH CONTINUITY OF SERVICE, AND ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS INCLUDING FULL BACK WAGES FROM THE DATE OF DISMISSAL TILL THE DATE OF REINSTATEMENT. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: -2-

ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition has been rendered infructuous in view of the fact that the petitioner has attained superannuation and the claim is only with regard to reinstatement. A memo is filed to that effect and the same reads as under:

”The petitioner submits that the writ pet. has been rendered infructuous in view of petitioner having attained superannuation. He had claimed the benefits for the service rendered. Hence, relief of reinstatement will not survive. Hence, the writ petition may kindly be disposed in the above terms, to meet the ends of justice.”

2. The memo is placed on record.

3. In view of the submission and memo, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. Sd/- JUDGE S*

Same Court & Year Karnataka Orders · 2024 Same Parties Sri Linganna vs The Divisional Controller Same Judge K.S. Hemalekha