Asha vs. The Managing Director, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Fixed Date by Court
Before:
Hon'ble Hrishikesh Roy, Hon'ble Prashant Kumar Mishra
Stage:
AFTER NOTICE (FOR ADMISSION) - CIVIL CASES
Remarks:
Disposed off
Listed On:
16 Jan 2024
In:
Judge
Category:
UNKNOWN
Interlocutory Applications:
42956/2022,
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
ITEM NO.52 COURT NO.6 SECTION IV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).5161/2022
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-11-2021 in WA No.200027/2021 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Kalaburagi)
ASHA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.42956/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No.42956/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 16-01-2024 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
| For Petitioner(s) | Mr. Basavaprabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv.<br>Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, AOR<br>Mr. Shashikant Sajjanshetty, Adv.<br>Mr. Aman Banka, Adv.<br>Mr. Samarth Kashyap, Adv. |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | Mr. M. Gireesh Kumar, Adv. |
Mr. S. K. Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR Ms. Uditha Chakravarthy, Adv. Ms. Priya S. Bhalerao, Adv. Mr. Varun Kanwal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
Heard Mr. Basavaprabhu S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner.
The respondents are represented by Mr. Gireesh Kumar, learned Advocate. Digitally signed by satish kumar yadav Date: 2024.01.20 11:26:06 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified
Learned Senior Counsel points out that the Division Bench of the High Court refused to entertain the Writ Appeal under the impugned judgment dated 26.11.2021 on the ground that the claimant (married daughter of the employee) failed to disclose the details of her own income and her husband's income. This is one of the reasons why the High Court declined to grant relief in the claim for compassionate appointment.
Be that as it may, learned Senior Counsel submits that that the petitioner be permitted to file a Review Petition before the High Court as, in fact, she has disclosed all income and other particulars.
Looking at the limited submission of the petitioner's counsel, the Special Leave Petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move the High Court in its review jurisdiction.
In the event of an adverse order, the petitioner is at liberty to come back to this Court.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (KAMLESH RAWAT) DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR