K T SHIVAIAH Vs. G PUTTASWAMY GOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by one Dr. Shivaiah, party in person, challenging the judgment and decree dated 7. 10. 2002 in so far as rejection of declaration with regard to deemed continuance and with regard to denial of consequential benefits in terms of the judgment and decree.

(2.) FACTS in brief as under; dr. Shivaiah, was appointed as Honorary Secretary on 24. 1. 1992 by the Karnataka State T. B. Association (for short ?the association?)in terms of a resolution. His appointment was ratified in the meeting held on 30. 4. 1992. He was carrying on his duties as per stipulations contained in the Rules and Regulations. An order was passed ordering termination of the services of the appellant by the association. Appellant challenged the same by way of seeking a declaration and an injunction. Respondents entered appearance. They contested the suit. They have stated that no relief can be granted to the plaintiff. Plaintiff?s remedy if at all is only for damages. They wanted the suit to be dismissed. The learned Judge after evidence has passed the following order;

(3.) APPELLANT appears in person. He is, as on today, 76 years old. He took me through the pleadings to contend that the learned Judge has denied the declaration of reinstatement. His further case is that the learned Judge is not correct in denying consequential benefits. He has also narrated to me the treatment meted out to him after an order of this Court in MFA. Per contra, the defendants counsel took me through the orders to contend that the suit is rightly dismissed. The remedy if at all is only for damages. He also relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of INTEGRATED RURAL development AGENCY vs RAM PYARE PANDEY.