Karnataka High Court
Khamarquadri W/O Late Syed Mukramuddin ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 January, 2012
Bench: N.Kumar, B.Sreenivase Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF JANUARY, 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SREENIVASE GOWDA
WP.NO. 83531 OF 2011 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
Smt. Khamarquadri
W/o late Syed Mukramuddin Quadri,
Age: Major, 0cc: Household,
R/o H.No.5-957, Roza-K,
Gulbarga. . . . Petitioner
(By Sri Santosh Annappa. Adv.)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
Reptd. By its Secretary to Govt.,
Dept. of Irrigation.
M.S.Building, Bangalore-I.
2. The Administrator,
Command Area Development
Authority, Bheemarayanagudi.
2
Tq. Shahapur, District Yadgir.
3. The Asst. Executive Engineer,
No.3, F.I.C. Sub-Division,
CADA, UKP, Hasanapur,
Tq. Shorapur. Dist: Yadgir. .. . Respondents
(By Sri Manvendra Reddy, GA)
This WP is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorari to
quash the order passed by the Hon'ble Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore, in Application
No.14662/2002 dated 12.03.2007 vide Annexure-'C', etc.
This W.P. coming on for Preliminary hearing this day.
N.Kumar J. made the following:
ORDER
Petitioner has preferred this petition challenging the order dated 12th March 2007 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. Bangalore in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner herein. Petitioner's husband Syed Mukramuddin Quadri was working as a Typist under the respondent with effect from 02.08. 1984. He raised an industrial dispute which was referred to Labour Court, Gulbara in Reference No.76/ 1997 for adjudication and L 3 an award came to be passed directing reinstatement with back wages from 7.10.1994 till reinstatement. When the said award was not Implemented he ified a writ petition for It's Implementation, which came to allowed, however modified the back wages to 50% Instead of full back wages. When the said order was not complied with, he filed a contempt petition and thereafter he was reinstated Into service and he was paid all monetary benefits due to him. Unfortunately, on 30.05.2002 he suffered heart attack at his office and died In the hospital. It Is thereafter, the petitioner has ified an application before the K.A.T. seeking regularisatlon of service of her husband and seeking monetary benefits. The Tribunal held that In view of Judgment of the Constitution Bench decision of the ApexCourtlnthecaseofUmadevi(2006)(4)SCC 1,therelIef sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted and rejected the application. Aggrieved by the said order the present writ petition Is filed.
4
2. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.
3. In the first place a person who was entitled to regularisation of his service is not alive and he had not approached either the K.A.T. or this Court for regularisation of his service. He had approached the Labour Court for reinstatement of his service and back wages which was granted. It is after his death his wife is seeking for regularisation of his service. The wife is not entitled to maintain an application for regularisation of services of her husband after his death. In that view of the matter we do not see any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly it is dismissed, Sd/me JUDGE 'ml- JUDGE