Karnataka High Court
Sri Sankappa Kotiyan vs The Head Quarters Asst To The Dy. ... on 1 December, 2011
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
Bench: Ajit J Gunjal
ION NO.29146 ING IN B' GROUP 1 FOLL( iw his claim | 'that he was 3 ppanna: Sheity aad 'cians | ally, It io the case © of the | leath of his fi application it ap muuch as the occu] felt DSB Rul G % of petition le pplicaticn under'. ant authority al was of the view not establighed «+ id as 4 seed on 8.4..2002. before. the. Kacn ee years arid 20 days application under Section' 5 of the tation Act. The rd to the fact that ore the Tribunel aa well tt Form Ne.7 for It is no dowibt true that sufficient:
cd -but noi. so liber it. Iam of. the + es ° carnet be even co "Another reason as to why -- entitied to.any relief iat with @ stion 77-A(1 ii) of the Act would tt of 2 le ter where an occu A within an application «for pect of . there. two le an application in Form No.7 in + & TBs.
2% Ther taal? A BY