Karnataka High Court
Smt. Mumtaz vs The Managing Director on 17 February, 2020
Author: S.Sujatha
Bench: S.Sujatha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION No.38408/2016 (S - RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.MUMTAZ
W/O LATE NOORUDDIN,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NEW MANDLI, 2ND CROSS,
SARDAR COMPOUND,
SHIMOGA-577 203.
2. SRI ASIF
S/O LATE NOORUDDIN,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT NEW MANDLI, 2ND CROSS,
SARDAR COMPOUND,
SHIMOGA-577 203. ... PETITIONERS
[BY SRI S.B.MUKKANNAPPA, ADV.]
AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA SOAPS & DETERGENT LIMITED,
CORPORATE OFFICE,
SRIGANDANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 055. ...RESPONDENT
[BY SRI ARUNA SHYAM M., ADV.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 26.04.2016 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-G.
-2-
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the endorsement dated 26.4.2016 issued by the respondent vide Annexure-G to the writ petition whereby the request of the petitioners for employment on compassionate grounds has been rejected.
2. The 1st petitioner is the wife of the deceased employee and the 2nd petitioner is his son. The 1st petitioner being the legally wedded wife of late Sri.Nooruddin who was an employee of the respondent company had filed an application dated 12.03.1998 before the respondent seeking appointment on compassionate grounds to the 2nd petitioner owing to the death of her husband while in service on 26.11.1997. The respondent had issued an endorsement dated 21/23.03.1998 to the effect that the -3- establishment being declared as a sick industry and its financial status not being in good condition, the request of the 1st petitioner cannot be considered, however in future when the situation arises for appointment, then on priority basis the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment shall be examined.
3. Subsequently there was no report received by the respondent. The 2nd petitioner has submitted the 2nd application in prescribed form seeking appointment on compassionate grounds on 14.6.2013. The respondent has issued an endorsement dated 26.04.2016 rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the following grounds:
(i) There is no possibility to provide employment as per Reference 1 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 ('Rules' for short) since the application was not submitted well -4- within time from the death of the employee.
(ii) As per the judgments reported in 2008(2) KLJ 222 DB and ILR 2008 KAR 2022 of this Court and as per reference 1 of Government Notification Rule 5 of the Rules, it is not possible to consider the application.
4. The respondent has published the list of the employees who died while in service as well as the names of the dependants who submitted the application during the period from 21.3.1988 to 3.9.2014. The name of the petitioner is reflected at Sl.No.40 in the said list. The respondent has prepared the list of candidates appointed under compassionate grounds for the period 2014-15. Further an additional eligibility list of candidates also has been published. However, the petitioner's name is not found in the said list. -5-
5. It is not in dispute that on the respondent company being declared as a sick industry and the proceedings being adjudicated before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), the company has deferred the consideration of the representations for appointment on compassionate grounds during the said period. After revival of the company, a list of such applicants was prepared and final list has been notified inasmuch as the appointment on compassionate grounds due to the death of the employees in service during the relevant period.
6. As could be seen from the factual matrix narrated above, the 1st application was filed by the mother of the petitioner well within a period of one year from the date of the death of the employee. The 2nd petitioner was aged about 28 years at the time of the death of his father. The impugned endorsement issued -6- by the respondent is not in conformity with the factual as well as legal aspects. The 1st application being submitted well within the period of one year and the reply given by the respondent in deferring the application and the second application dated 14.6.2013 said to have been filed by the petitioner as a reminder cannot be held to be per se illegal.
7. The mater requires to be reconsidered by the respondent in terms of Rule 5 of the Rules. Hence, the endorsement dated 26.4.2016 at Annexure-G is quashed. The proceedings are restored to the file of the respondent to reconsider the representation of the petitioner and to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law keeping in mind the observations made herein above.
Compliance shall be made in an expedite manner, in any event, not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. -7-
With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Dvr: