Kum B Roopa vs The Managing Director on 5 June, 2018

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Kum B Roopa vs The Managing Director on 5 June, 2018

Bench: A.S.Bopanna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF JUNE, 2018

                        BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA

     WRIT PETITION NO.13246/2014(S-Res)

BETWEEN :

Kum. B.Roopa,
D/o.Late B.Basavaraja,
Aged about 20 years,
Residing at Siddapura village,
Hotepanahalli Post,
Challakere Taluk,
Chitradurga District.               ...PETITIONER

     (By Sri.Devaraj N., Adv.)

AND :

1.   The Managing Director,
     Karnataka Power Transmission
     Corporation Limited,
     Cauveri Bhavan,
     Bangalore - 560 009.

2.   The Director (Admn. & HR)
     Karnataka Power Transmission
     Corporation Limited,
     Cauveri Bhavan,
     Bangalore - 560 009.

3.   The Superintending Engineer
     (Elec.), C, O & M Division,
     BESCOM, Davangere-577 002.
                           -2-


4.   The Executive Engineer (Elec.),
     C, O & M Division,
     BESCOM, Hiriyur-572 143.        ...RESPONDENTS

     (By Smt.Surabhi Srinivas, Adv. for
         Sri.Harikrishna S.Holla, Adv. for R1 & R2,
         Sri.Nataraj H.P., Adv. for R3 & R4)
                       . . . .

       This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the
impugned order dated 07.07.2013 issued by the
respondent No.4 marked at Annexure 'G' as the same is
illegal and contrary to law and etc.

      This writ petition coming on for preliminary
hearing in 'B' Group, this day, the Court made the
following:

                      ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 07.07.2013 impugned at Annexure 'G' to the petition. In that light the petitioner seeks issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to forthwith provide an employment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds in lieu of the death of her sister.

2. The petitioner's sister B.Netravathi was appointed on compassionate grounds on the death of their father who was working in Tumkur Circle. -3- Subsequently, the sister of the petitioner also died in harness on 20.09.2012. It is in that view the petitioner seeks that she be appointed on compassionate grounds. The respondents having taken note of the request of the petitioner have rejected the same through their endorsement dated 07.07.2013. It is in that view, the petitioner is before this Court in this petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while seeking that the impugned order/endorsement be quashed and a consideration for compassionate appointment be made, would refer to the Notification dated 08.10.2012 (Annexure 'F') to point out that the Regulation has been amended through the said Notification and even the unmarried sister of an employee is also eligible to be considered for compassionate appointment. In that light the learned counsel contends that though such notification has come into force on 08.10.2012 subsequent to the death of the sister of the petitioner, the Government through the Notification dated 11.07.2012 had made such -4- amendment to the Karnataka Civil Services (Compassionate Ground Appointment) Rules, 1996 and as such if the said date is taken into consideration, the same being prior to her death, the benefits should be extended to the petitioner.

4. The respondents have filed their objection statement to the petition contending that the notification as issued is to amend the Regulations which governs the service conditions of its employees and such amendments as made would take effect from the date of the Notification and as such would not be applicable to the case of the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent would also rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Government Pensioners' Association and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1986 SC 1907). In that view, it is contended that when the Notification can only be prospective, the claim of the petitioner cannot be accepted.

-5-

6. In the light of the above, the facts are not in dispute inasmuch as the Notification issued by the respondent providing for employment on compassionate grounds to unmarried sister was issued on 08.10.2012 so as to amend the Regulation relating to the appointment on compassionate grounds. The death of the sister of the petitioner had taken place prior to the same, on 20.09.2012. Since the Notification provides prospective effect and consideration to that effect is also contained in the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent, though in a different context, the relevant aspects to be taken note is that the Notification would take effect from the date it has been issued. If that be the position, the employees of the respondents are governed by the Regulations of the respondents themselves. Mere amendment contained in the Karnataka Civil Services (Compassionate Ground Appointment) Rules, 1996 though prior to the date of death of the sister of the petitioner, the said benefit cannot be extended to the petitioner. In that view, the endorsement dated 07.07.2013 issued by the -6- respondents is in accordance with law and the same does not call for interference.

Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merits, stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE SPS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court