Karnataka High Court
Smt.K.S. Apoorva vs State Of Karnataka on 28 October, 2024
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:43307-DB
WP No. 21159 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT PETITION NO. 21159 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SMT. K.S. APOORVA,
D/O LATE R.N SEETHARAMA RAO,
W/O SRI KARTHIK V,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/A ANANDA REDDY NILAYA,
12TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, 'D' ROAD,
AMARAVATHY LAYOUT, NEAR SRINAGAR,
BANGARPET, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 114.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI G S VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE & COMMERCE,
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
Digitally signed VIDHANA SOUDHA,
by NANDINI R BENGALURU-560 001.
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563 101.
3. THE TAHSILDAR,
KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT,
KOLAR-563 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. S.R KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION PRAYING TO A) CALL
FOR THE RECORDS IN THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:43307-DB
WP No. 21159 of 2023
PETITIONER IN A.No-5927/2021 FROM THE FILE OF KSAT,
BENGALURU B) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CETIORARI
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.02.2023 PASSED
BY THE KSAT, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No-5927/2021
VIDE ANNEXURE-A ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT) Petitioner was before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application No.5927/2021 grieving against denial of compassionate appointment by the jurisdictional respondents. The Tribunal vide order dated 22.02.2023 denied relief to her agreeing with the contention of the respondents that a married daughter is not entitled to such a facility in public employment. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, we decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the -3- NC: 2024:KHC:43307-DB WP No. 21159 of 2023 reasoning of Tribunal as reflected in the impugned order. Firstly, the right to compassionate appointment is regulated by the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996. The right to stake claim for compassionate appointment would accrue on the death in harness of a government servant. In the instant case, one Mr.R.N.Chethan Kumar died on 6.4.2015 in harness leaving his mother and petitioner who is none other than his sister. Petitioner admittedly was married during the lifetime of father Sri.R.N.Seetharama Rao. As on the date the right accrued, a married daughter admittedly was not within the definition of 'dependents'. Therefore, no right would accrue in her favour.
2.1. The vehement submission of learned counsel appearing for petitioner that a learned Single Judge of this Court in BHUNESHWARA V PURANIK v. STATE OF KARNATAKA1, has struck down the word 'unmarried' occurring in the definition of 'dependents' and later, the 1 (2020) SCC OnLine Kar 3397 -4- NC: 2024:KHC:43307-DB WP No. 21159 of 2023 subject Rules have been amended even to include 'married daughters' within the definition, would not come to the aid of petitioner. Firstly, where a piece of delegated legislation is struck down on any ground other than legislative competence, ordinarily, the decision would operate prospectively. Added, even the amendment to the subject Rules effected in the year 2021 was pursuant to the said decision of the learned Single Judge and apparently, it is prospective in operation, in the absence of a contra intent being demonstrated.
2.2. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Rules governing compassionate appointment have socio-welfare orientation and therefore, any amendment to the same should be treated as having been brought into force with retrospective effect, is difficult to agree with. The right to stake a claim for appointment is a substantive right. That would accrue as already mentioned above, on the death of an employee in harness. Therefore, that right would be governed by the -5- NC: 2024:KHC:43307-DB WP No. 21159 of 2023 law that obtained as on the date of death. No Rule or Ruling is cited to support the contention of petitioner that socio-welfare instruments of law, when amended will have retrospective effect. It hardly needs to be stated that the law relating to substantive rights is strongly presumed to have prospective effect unlike the law relating to procedure vide HITENDRA VISHNU THAKUR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA2.
2.3. A Coordinate Bench of this Court while considering claim of a married daughter for compassionate appointment in MRS.MEGHA J vs. LIC OF INDIA3, has observed at Paragraph Nos.4 & 5 as under:
"4. Learned Single Judge has rightly relied upon the Apex Court decision in State of Maharashtra vs. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate AIR 2022 SC 5176 to the effect that a married daughter residing in the matrimonial home ordinarily cannot be treated as a dependent on her father. Our scriptures injunct "bharta rakshati yavvane..." literally meaning that it is the duty of husband to provide maintenance to his dependent wife. That is how our legislations too are structured e.g., Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (applicable to all regardless of religions), Sections 24 & 25 of the 2 (1994) 4 SCC 602 3 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 382 -6- NC: 2024:KHC:43307-DB WP No. 21159 of 2023 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (applicable to Hindus, in a broad sense of the term), Section 37 of the Divorce Act, 1869 (applicable to Christians), Section 40 of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 (applicable to Parsis), Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (applicable to all persons regardless of religion and marital status), Sections 36 & 37 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 (applicable to Muslims wives), etc., have been structured. No binding rule or ruling that guarantees right of maintenance to the married daughter residing with the husband qua the father, is brought to our notice.
5. It hardly needs to be stated that the appointment on compassionate ground avails as an exception to the rule of equality enacted in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court in Bank of Baroda vs. Baljit Singh 2023 SCC OnLine SC 745 has reiterated that the compassionate appointment is a concession and therefore, cannot be claimed as a matter of right; the job aspirants on this ground need to satisfy the criteria laid down in the extant rules/schemes. Added, the right to claim such appointment is conditioned by the fact that the family of the employee dying in harness is in financial distress and therefore, needs to be tided over...."
2.4. Similarly, another Coordinate Bench in SMT.
PRIYANKA HALAMANI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA4, has observed at paras 6 & 8 which read as under:
"6.The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the court should invoke the doctrine 4 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 399 -7- NC: 2024:KHC:43307-DB WP No. 21159 of 2023 of reading down and thereby add daughter-in-law to the definition of family for the purpose of staking claim for compassionate appointment, does not merit acceptance and reasons for this are not for to seek. Ordinarily this doctrine is invoked to trim the contours of law which otherwise suffers from the vice of over inclusiveness or such other infirmity and therefore is falling foul of a higher legal norm such as the parent statute, the constitution, etc. The Courts do not readily resort to this doctrine in the absence of challenge to the legal provision on some constitutional/statutory grounds. Admittedly, there is no challenge to the definition clause which gives the meaning of family for the purpose of extant Rules. No Rule or Ruling nor opinio juris is cited at the Bar to support the preposition that by the process of reading down, the scope of an instrument of law can be expanded.
8. For the purpose of compassionate appointment, who all can lay a claim, is a matter of public policy that falls within the domain of law-maker, and the Courts being his coordinate branch, cannot run a race of opinions with him. A greater wisdom lies in confining to the conventional limits of judicial process, leaving the legislative one to the other coordinate branch, than otherwise. More is not necessary to specify."
3. The two Coordinate Bench decisions aforementioned support the case of respondents that the decision to deny compassionate appointment to the petitioner cannot be faltered. The impugned order of the Tribunal is structured on that premise, regardless of articulation. In writ jurisdiction, when challenge is laid to -8- NC: 2024:KHC:43307-DB WP No. 21159 of 2023 orders of the kind, it is not sufficient merely to show that such orders are wrong; their unsustainability has to be demonstrated. The Tribunal in considering merits of the representation has not committed any error and therefore, contra submission of petitioner's counsel does not impress us.
In the above circumstances, this petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be and accordingly dismissed, costs having been made easy.
Sd/-
(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE Sd/-
(C M JOSHI) JUDGE NR/bsv/cbc List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6