Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The State Of Karnataka vs Shiva Kumari on 20 January, 2021
Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, Hemant Gupta, S. Ravindra Bhat
1
ITEM NO.26 Court 4 (Video Conferencing) 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
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 23512/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-06-2018
in RP No. 100078/2017 23-03-2016 in WA No. 100082/2015 passed by
the High Court Of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad)
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
SHIVA KUMARI & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No.101562/2019-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING )
Date : 20-01-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR
For Respondent(s) Ms. D.J. Millo, Adv.
Mr. T. R. B. Sivakumar, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
The principal objection is to the direction issued by the High Court, as a result of which the State has to comply with the terms of the compromise entered into between two wives (and their Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by respective branches) of the Indu Marwah Date: 2021.01.21 deceased employee-C.Jaya Prakash. The 15:34:41 IST Reason:
essential terms of the compromise were as under:
“1. It is compromised that the Petitioner No.1 is 2 the legally wedded first wife and petitioner No.2 and 3 are the legal heirs of the deceased C. Jaya Prakash.
2. Further it is also compromised that the Respondent No.1 is second wife and Respondent No.2 and 3 are the children born to late C. Jaya Prakash.
3. The amount shown in this petition are to be equally distributed in between the Petitioner No.1 to 3 and Respondent No. 2 & 3.
4. Further it is decided by the elders that the compensatory job of late C. Jaya Prakash is to be provided to the C.J. Karthik the petitioner No.3. In case if the Respondents have submitted a requisition for the same to the concerned department, for which the Respondent No. 1 to 3 shall submit No-Objection to the concerned department to provide the job to Petitioner No.3.
5. The pension amount fixed by the concerned Department is allotted to the share of Respondent No.1, for which the Petitioner No. 1 to 3 shall submit No- Objection to the concerned department.
6. Hence, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to record the compromise and issue Probate and Succession certificate in favour of the Petitioners and Respondents as prayed for in the petition in the interest of justice.
Thus, the branch of the first wife was to be taken care of by providing appointment on compassionate basis to the son of the first wife.
Mr. V. Raghupathy, learned advocate appearing for the State submitted that no positive direction to offer appointment on compassionate basis could be issued.
Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances on record, in our view, no interference is called for. The direction issued by the High Court shall now be complied with by 3 the concerned Department strictly in order of seniority maintained by the Department. For such purpose, the seniority in the present case shall be reckoned from the date of original representation. While issuing notice in the matter, this Court had directed the State to deposit Rs.10,000/- towards costs to the respondents. The amount so deposited shall be handed over to the respondents and the appropriate cheque be handed over to the learned advocate-on- record appearing for the respondent.
The SLPs are disposed of in aforesaid terms. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(INDU MARWAH) (PRADEEP KUMAR) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER