Karnataka High Court
Shashidhar Karegouda Haralahalli vs The Blok Education Officer on 7 September, 2011
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, B.Manohar
b.) Teacher in the Government Higher»-Prin-iaryilSichool_]in7., Chikkakabbara village, Hirekeruriil'Ta}.uikli and he died on 15-6-1992 shervicegit-.At':..the'"tilme of death of the petitioner's _f__at:he_r',e._V_vthei.lpe_ti_tioArier was minor and his date The petitioner attained 27-4-2001. Thereafter,._ application on 2~5~2001 on compassionate groundvsllibefort: the}: second respondent under Karnataka
Civil Services'(Appeointmlenétppon Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 19l9l6,i(herei_nafter.ireferred to as 'Compassionate Rules--7}--.--««'The second respondent forwarded the to the third respondent. The third lresp_ond'eln~t_ioifwarded the same to the 4"] respondent for nece~-ssa.ryvalction. The fourth respondent rejected li"i:'i.vi.i'*«Japplication of the petitioner on 16-5-2002 on the e._il'grlo'u-rid that under Rule 5 of the Compassionate Appointment Rules as amended by 1998 Rules, the dependant of the deceased Government Servant shall make an application within a period of one year from the date of death of the Government Servant, hence, the Aw
4. Being aggrieved by the orderiiidlat'3di*«. well as the order dated 24--i-2008 p'_assedi'~by_tl1ei the Petitioner filed the Presentikvrit petition.i'i._V
5. Sri.Harish S. Maigur, iiearrie_d.hC~o.unsel H appearing for the petitioner contevndedjt:ha;t~~.:.t'iieVfather of the petitioner d1;"e'ci"<g;.gVg:i:')11 in service. Immediately age of majority on .27--4--2:vOlO"l","othev an application seeking for con1.pa«ssiio-niatiei'~,_iiap_p'oin~tment. In View of the amendrnentu" to"_Su.b'--.R'_ule. 2 of Rule 9 of the Complassionate,Appointment Rules, the dependants of suc;'l*1"«:.deceased"G.Qvernrnent Servant may make an i'a.ppli.catVion_"within a period of one year from the date of such' coni-nieiricement and such application shall be deerned7.toiihave been made within a period specified A ffiignider Rule 5 of the Compassionate Appointment Rules R and shall be considered for appointment subject to the other provisions of the Rules. The KAT also lost sight of the said Rules and sought for allowing the application $4 by setting aside the orders passe:dby'*the'l..4th_. as well as the KAT.
6. On the other hand, Wodieylariilearned Additional Governmentlitl' Ad_vot_:'aVte"=lappearing for the respondents contended .;that~"a's ___p'er_=,Ri__1le 5 of the Compassionate*iAp.pointment amended w.e.f. 1-4-1999, of deceased Government Employee, attain the age of 18 years 'witlf1inilA'o'ne__l:year_iifroi*n [the date of death of the Governrlnent.Ernploy'cell"andl must make an application within" one yearllthereafter. ln the instant case, the petitioner died on 156-1992 and the A"petitiyonelr._ha.sv.~attained majority on 2742001 and he made an application on 2-5-2001 which is beyond one iyear and his application is not in accordance with Rule 1' :5'o.f..the Compassionate Appointment Rules and his case .._cannot be considered for compassionate appointment. Further, Sub--Rule 2 of Rule 9 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner and sought for dismissal of the /SM writ petition.
7. We have carefully considered the addressed by the learned counselihfor. the ,par'ti_es perused the orders impugned and__ Co.rnvpassionlatVe'*. Appointment Rules.
8. Rule 5 of the C(-:i~¥'~£'§'\D'gV?'l:S'1.C,:'v:_1'l~1:v%l'i.'t:-l"fxfip.Qlntment Rules as amended onsl ivyftfiat "the every dependant of servant, seeking shall make an application'tvithin_;oi1e'y_ea*r from the date of death of the Governme-n_tservan'tl; form, as may be notified by tl§1ellG.overnm__elnt, from time to time, to the Head of lth.e_yllDepartrne_nt under whom the deceased Government i"S.€I'-RX"/fayfxltv.itWOI'klng." The first proviso to the said Rules p_rov'ides that "in case of a minor, he must have ylp.l'atteained--* the age of 18 years within one year from the a_"date'».of death of the Government servant and he must an application within one year thereafter." The wconstitutional validity of the amended Rules has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in a judgment reported in ILR 2007 KAR 3108 (K.lVl.PRAKASl-I v/s THE STATE OF' KARNATV'/XKA, ée l3Ei?éElQl§ENTspE'i§vi'éi'€:RS'?§8ll'l%'s)',&'§l9.lflfl"lS§rl*"l'l*§l SECRETARY). In the instalntillicase, the Covernlment Servant died on 15~6--i::1v'-992 thfleelipldependantiiiattained majority on 27-4-2001 the death of the Government :.'Se'r--v:'ant*.._"»,_ Thefimother of the petitioner application for compassion.ate_ app'o.in*t.im.elnt. The scheme was i tI'Od*f,'1C€ to5"avoid.,thefinancial crisis or estltute. The epenc an, 5 of 'tn'e_y oece~ase_ government mp oyee have « waited fo'r'_llOv thereafter, the petitioner has made an appl'ication.: This shows that the family of the deceased: Government servant is not in financial crisis. Compassionate Appointment Rules provides *for}'making an application within one year from the dateof death of the Government employee. In the lg.instantllcase, 10 years after death of the Government 'employee, the petitioner attained majority and made an lwlapplication. ,The said application cannot be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. Further, as per amended sub--Rule 2 of Rule 9, provides that the Aw application shall be made within a period of one "year from the date of commencement of the Rules 1.4.1999. The application ought to have been "
or before 1-4-2000. In the instan__t~ea_se, if the petitioner had not attained:"*majority:"-- could not make an applicatiiony. We 'the 9' petitioner is not entitled to iiseei-,'iy_ appiointrnjent on compassionate groundsa" of. the deceased GovVe.rn1n_entgEinployeef.vvas'vriot in financial crisis.
9. The__ IelioinfhlteifiS'up'rernef Court in a judgment reportediiinii (il99'4)h4A' in the case of UMESH i<UM_;4R uNA(3PAI_igiv/si:STATE OF HARYANA clearly held the iappointment on compassionate ground is not étno.fh«er" s1c;.tm:je"' of recruitment, but mere exception to . theiii" General Rules of appointment, taking into 9inaconsipderation the fact of the death of the Government
-- servant while in service leaving his family without any "means of livelihood. In such cases, the object of the Compassionate Appointment is to enable the family to get over the sudden financial crisis. In the instant case, 4/