Annappa N Madar vs Hubli Dharwad Municipal Corpn. on 1 March, 2012

[Cites 3, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Annappa N Madar vs Hubli Dharwad Municipal Corpn. on 1 March, 2012

Bench: Nk.Patil

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
                            1
                            5 T
           DATED THIS THE         DAY OF MARCH, 2012

                            BEFORE

             THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NK.PATIL

                 WP NO.67017/2009 (S-RES)
                  A/w MISC.W.61847/2011

BETWEEN:

ANNAPPA N MADAR
Sb NAGAPPA MADAR
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
R/O MADARMADDI, MADAR ONI
DHARWAD.                                          PETITIONER
                                                  (COMMON)
(BY M/S.SHASTRI AND HEGDE ASSTS.)

AND:

HUBLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPN.
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
DIST DHARWAD.                               ...   RESPONDENT
                                                  (COMMON)
(BY SRI.R.G.DEVADHAR, ADV.)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ENDORSEMENT/ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
DTD.3 1/10/2009 VIDE ANN EXURE-F AND ETC.,

      MISC.W.61847/2011 IS FILED UNDER SEC.151 OF CPC
PRAYING TO HEAR THE MATTER OUT OF TURN AND DISPOSE
OF THE SAME AT AN EARLY DATE.
                              2




     ThIS WRiT Ptu i iON AND MISC.W.61847/2011 COMING
ON FOR ORDERS, ThIS DAY, ThE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

The petitioner assailin9 the correctness of the endorsement dated 3 1/10/2009 vide Annexure "F" bearing No.HDMC/20120192-09 has presented this petition. Further the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner by applying the Rules of Kamataka Clvii Services(appointment on compassionate Grounds) Rules 1996 with reference to proviso to Ruie 5 and give an appointment.

2. It Is not in dispute that the petitioner earlier had flied Writ Petition No.30346/2008 questioning the endorsement dated 16/11/2007. The said matter had come up for consideration on 30/07/2009 and the said endorsement was quashed and respondent No.1 was directed to consider the application flied by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground within four months from the date of receipt of copy of the said order.

I' 3 It is specifically observed in para 2 of the said order that while passing the impugned order respondent-authority have over looked notification dated 12/09/1996. The Karnataka Civil .Service(Appointment on compassionate Grounds)Rules 1996 was not in vogue at the time of the death of the petitioner's father. As per sub rule (5) of Rule 5 of the said rules the application for appointment on compassionate ground had to be filed within one year from the date of death of the deceased employee. However, in the case of minor, application shall have to be made within a period of one year after attaining majority. Since those rules are applicable to the facts of this case, the petitioner has rightly applied for being appointed on compassionate grounds within one year from the date of his attaining majority. Thus, the respondents should have considered the application filed by the petitioner on merits.

3. The order passed by this Court in Writ Petition NO.30346/2008 is not considered and without application of mind, the respondent has proceeded to issue the / / 4/

impugned endorsement rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, he is constrained to redress his grievance by presenting this writ petition seeking appropriate relief.

4. After perusal of the impugned endorsement and other material available on file, it Is manifest on the face of the contents of the endorsement that the respondent has failed to consider the observation made by this Court at paragraph 2 In Writ Petition No.30346/2008 disposed of on 30/07/2009. Therefore, the endorsement impugned is liable to be set aside at the threshold without going into the merits or demerits of the case.

5. For the foregoing reasons, writ petition Is allowed in part. The impugned endorsement issued by the respondent dated 31/10/2009 in HDMC/20120192-09 vide Annexure "F" is hereby set aside. The matter stands remitted back to the respondent to reconsider the matter afresh and In pursuance of the order passed this Court In Writ PetitIon No.30346/2008 specifically with reference to 5 para 2 of the said order and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

In view of disposal of the writ petition on merits, relief sought in Misc.W.61847/2011 does not survive for consideration. Hence, the application stands disposed of S as having become infructuous.

Sd/ JUDGE kmv

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court