Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sundari. A vs Managing Director on 6 December, 2022
Author: Prasanna B. Varale
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT APPEAL NO.332 OF 2022 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1 . SMT. SUNDARI. A
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
W/O. LATE SADANANDA GOWDA,
WORKED AS TASK SUPERVISOR
VAN ANTHIBETTU HOUSE,
AITHUR VILLAGE,
SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE,
PUTTHUR TALUK,
D.K. DISTRICT-574 230.
2 . MR. GOKUL M. S.
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
S/O. LATE SADANANDA.M,
NO.2-109, KALLAJE HOUSE,
AITHOOR, SUNKADAKATTE, PUTTHUR
D.K. DISTRICT-574 230.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. H MALATESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . MANAGING DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA FOREST DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD.,
ARANYA BHAVAN, VANA VIKASA,
2
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU-560 003.
2 . CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
MANGALURU DIVISION,
MANGALURU,
D.K. DISTRICT -575 001.
3 . THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA FOREST DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD.,
POST BOX NO. 930,
KULASHEKHARA POST,
MANGALURU-575 005.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND SET-ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP
NO.19544/2021, DATED 08/11/2021, AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, ASHOK S. KINAGI, J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra-court appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Courts Act challenging the order dated 08.11.2021, passed in W.P.No.19544/2021 by the learned Single Judge.
3
2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the learned Single Judge. Appellants are the petitioners and respondents are the respondents before the learned Single Judge.
3. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal are as under:
One Sadananda Gowda worked as a Task Supervisor under respondent No.3. He died on 07.06.2003. The petitioner No.1 being the wife of Late Sadananda Gowda submitted an application to appoint petitioner No.2 on compassionate ground, on 16.10.2003. Respondent No.2 issued an endorsement stating that the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground would be considered when petitioner No.2 attains the age of majority. The petitioner No.2 after attaining the age of majority approached the respondents seeking for appointment on compassionate ground. The respondents declined to consider the application of 4 petitioner No.2 stating that Late Sadananda Gowda was not a government employee. The petitioners aggrieved by the endorsement dated 05.03.2004, have filed writ petition in W.P.No.19544/2021. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties, rejected the writ petition vide order dated 08.11.2021. The petitioners, aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, have filed this writ appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.2.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have submitted an application within one year from the date of death of Sadananda Gowda. He submits that the respondents could have considered the application of the petitioners and could have appointed petitioner No.2 on compassionate ground. He submits that the respondents issued the 5 impugned endorsement stating that Late Sadananda Gowda was not a government employee. He submits that the impugned endorsement issued by the respondents is arbitrary and erroneous. He submits that the learned Single Judge without considering the material on record, dismissed the writ petition only on the ground of delay and laches. Hence he submits that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in dismissing the writ petition. Hence on these grounds, he prayed to allow the writ appeal.
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate supports the impugned order.
7. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
8. It is not in dispute that Late Sadananda Gowda was working as a Task Supervisor under respondent No.3. While he was in service, said Sadananda Gowda died on 07.06.2003, leaving 6 behind the petitioners as his legal heirs. The petitioner No.1 being the wife of deceased employee of respondent No.3, submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 16.10.2003. On the strength of the application submitted by petitioner No.1, respondents issued an endorsement dated 05.03.2004, vide Annexure-D. It was informed that Late Sadananda Gowda was not a government employee and cannot recommend compassionate appointment to petitioner No.2. The said endorsement was addressed to petitioner No.1 on 05.03.2004. The petitioners have not taken any steps to challenge the impugned endorsement till 2021. The petitioners kept quiet for nearly 17 years. Further, the petitioner No.2 has not made any application for compassionate appointment. From the conduct of the petitioners, it appears that the petitioners were not in need of employment immediately on the death of Late Sadananda Gowda. Having sustained all these years at this length of 7 time, it is not open for the petitioners to seek compassionate appointment. The object of providing employment on compassionate ground is that the family would not be able to make source of livelihood. The legal representatives cannot claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right and also by way of inheritance. Compassionate appointment cannot be treated as bonanza. It is not disbursement of gift. It is sympathy of syndrome. It is meant to provide minimum relief for meeting immediate hardship to save the bereaved family from sudden financial crisis due to death of the sole breadwinner. It is purely humanitarian consideration. Since from 2004, till filing of writ petition in the year 2021, the petitioners have survived for all those years.
9. The learned Single Judge placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION & ANR., VS. NANAK CHAND & ANR., reported in (2004) 8 12 SCC 487, wherein it is held that highly belated claim for compassionate appointment would not be maintainable. The petitioners have filed this writ petition after lapse of 17 years. Thus there is an inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD. & ORS., VS. ANUSREE K. B. IN Civil Appeal No.6958/2022, disposed on 30.09.2022, held that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed several years after employee's death as its object is to help family to meet sudden crisis.
10. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR & ORS., VS. SMT. PARDEN ORAON in Civil Appeal No.897/2021, disposed on 09.04.2021, has held as under:
"As the object of compassionate appointment is for providing immediate succour to the family of a deceased employee, the 9 respondent's son is not entitled for compassionate appointment after the passage of a long period of time since his father has gone missing."
11. Further in the case of CHENNAI METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD AND OTHERS VS. T.T.MURALI BABU in Civil Appeal No.1941/2014, Hon'ble Apex Court has held at paragraphs 16 and 17 as under:
"16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not 10 be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant - a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. In the case at hand, though there has been four years' delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent-employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others' ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of 11 probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons - who compete with 'Kumbhakarna' or for that matter 'Rip Van Winkle'. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold.
17. Having dealt with the doctrine of delay and laches, we shall presently proceed to deal with the doctrine of proportionality which has been taken recourse to by the High Court regard being had to the obtaining factual matrix. We think it appropriate to refer to some of the authorities which have been placed reliance upon by the High Court."
12. The writ court cannot brush aside the delay and laches. Learned Single Judge after considering the entire material on record was justified in passing the impugned order. We do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, we 12 decline to interfere with the impugned order. Hence we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The writ appeal is dismissed.
In view of disposal of the writ appeal, pending IAs., if any, do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE RD