RAMAKRISHNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is filed by the Petitioner in W.P. No. 29392 of 2009 being aggrieved by the order dated 26-10-2009.

(2.) It is the contention of the writ Petitioner-Appellant herein that he is the employee in the third Respondent-Bangalore City and Rural District Milk Producers Association Union. That on attaining the age of 58 years on 31-7-2009 he was relieved from services forthwith. However, the age of retirement of the State Government employees has been increased from 58 years to 60 years by order dated 28-7-2008 and the same is applicable to the Appellant and the Respondent was not justified in relieving the Appellant on attaining the age of 58 years. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that there is delay and latches on the part of the writ Petitioner which is unexplained and also held that notification dated 17-9-2008 is prospective with effect from 17-9-2008 and the Petitioner had retired from services on 31-7-2009. Being aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed by the unsuccessful writ Petitioner.

(3.) Notice was issued to the Respondents. The learned Counsel appearing for the third Respondent has filed statement of objections contending that the Appellant has suppressed the material fact in the impugned writ petition. He submitted that in W.P. No. 10701 of 2008 writ Petitioner was Petitioner 1 and the relief that is sought for in the impugned writ petition has already been sought in the said W.P. No. 10701 of 2008 along with other writ Petitioners and the said writ petition was allowed and the Petitioner has been reinstated who is now in the employment of the third Respondent. He further submitted that for having suppressed the material fact and also having regard to the fact that the Appellant has sought for the same relief which is not maintainable, the Appellant may be imposed with exemplary cost.