Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka And Anr vs Sri.Bheemaray Kadagol on 7 September, 2018
Bench: S.Sujatha, Mohammad Nawaz
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
W.P.NO.200627/2016 (S-KAT)
Between:
1. The State of Karnataka
Represented by its Director,
Department of Public Library,
V.V.Tower, 4th Floor,
Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bengaluru-560 001.
2. The Deputy Director,
District Central Library,
Vijayapur-586 101.
... Petitioners
(By Sri K.M.Ghate, AGA)
And:
Sri, Bheemaray Kadagol,
S/o Late Sri Parasappa Kadagol,
Aged about 21 years,
R/o Inagaleshwar,
2
Basavanabagewadi Taluk,
Vijayapur District-586 203.
...Respondent
(By Sri Ravindra Reddy, Advocate)
This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a writ in the nature of
certiorari or any other appropriate order or direction to quash
the order dated 07.08.2015 passed by the Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru in Application No.53 of
2012 as per Annexure-B and etc.
This petition coming on for Admission, this day,
S. SUJATHA J., made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the State challenging the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore (for short 'the Tribunal') dated 07.08.2015 in Application No.53/2012 whereby the application filed by the respondent/applicant has been allowed quashing the endorsement issued by the petitioners rejecting the request of the respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds under Rule 5 of the Karnataka 3 Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Second Amendment) Rules, 2000 (for short 'Rules').
2. Undisputed facts are that the father of the respondent was a Government Servant, working as an attender in the office of the Deputy Director, District Central Library, Vijaypur died on 16.06.1996 while in service leaving behind his wife, the present respondent and the daughter. As on date of death of his father, the respondent was a minor. The mother of the respondent submitted an application on 16.03.2000 seeking appointment to her son on compassionate grounds for the death of the father of the respondent herein which was not considered. Subsequently, on 08.07.2010, the mother of the respondent submitted another application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds as her son had attained majority, which came to be rejected. Hence, an application was filed before the Tribunal challenging the rejection order and also challenging the action of the 4 petitioners. The Tribunal analyzing the factual aspects, allowed the application. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the petitioners placing reliance on Rule 5 of Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Second Amendment) Rules, 2000 ('Rules" for short) and the proviso thereto, would submit that the respondent was not qualified for appointment on compassionate grounds on the date of death of his father on 16.06.1996. Being a minor at that time, on attaining majority, an application filed on 08.07.2010 after about 14 years from the date of death of his father, would disqualify him to seek for an appointment on compassionate grounds in the light of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of K. M. Prakash vs. State of Karnataka and Another reported in (2007) 5 AIR Kant R 111 as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs. Anil 5 Badyakar & Ors. reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2534.
4. Learned counsel Sri Ravindra Reddy, appearing for the respondent supports the impugned order.
5. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Rule 5 of the Rules reads as under:
"5. Application for appointment. - Every dependent of a deceased Government Servant, seeking appointment under these rules shall made an application within one year from the date of death of the Government servant, in such form, as may be notified by the Government, from time to time, to the Head of the Department under whom the deceased Government servant was working:
Provided that in the case of a minor he must have attained the age of eighteen 6 years within one year from the date of the death of the Government servant and he must make an application within one year thereafter:
Provided further that nothing in the first proviso shall apply to an application made by the dependent of a deceased Government servant, after attaining majority and which was pending for consideration on the date of commencement of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Amendment) Rules, 1998."
7. There is no dispute regarding the factual aspects of the matter narrated as aforesaid. The issue involved herein is no more res-integra in view of the cognate Bench decision of this Court in the case of K. M. Prakash supra, wherein Rule 5 of Rules and the proviso to the Rules has been considered and it is held that the intention of the Rule making authority is that, the right to claim compassionate appointment cannot be reserved in 7 favour of a minor indefinitely until he attained majority. The Rule making authority in its wisdom has stipulated a period of one year from the death of the employee within which the minor should have attained majority and thereafter he should make an application for appointment on compassionate grounds within a period of one year. Such a prescription is held to be valid and to be characterised as one not violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
8. In view of Rule 5 of KCS Rules and the proviso to the Rules and also legal principles enunciated by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court it is thus clear that the post on compassionate grounds cannot be reserved for a minor indefinitely. There is no vested right, which can be exercised at any time in future. The object and purpose of compassionate employment is to give an immediate relief to the family of a bread earner who dies in service. It is to overcome the financial crisis of the family, which is in harness, the compassionate 8 appointment is made. Once the crisis is over, after about 14 years, no appointment on compassionate grounds can be made at the request of the minor attaining majority.
9. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the order passed by the Tribunal holding that the respondent is entitled to an appointment on compassionate grounds immediately after one year on he attaining majority dehors the date of the death of his father is contrary to the dictum pronounced by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court, discussed supra. Hence, the order impugned is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside.
Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal at Annexure-B is set aside.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Srt