Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri. H. C. Sridhara Murthy on 8 December, 2021
Bench: S.Sujatha, Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
W.P.No.15849/2021 (S - KSAT)
BETWEEN :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
& FAMILY WELFARE,
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF AYURVEDA,
YOGA & NATURUOPATHY,
UNANI, SIDDHA & HOMEOPATHY (AYUSH),
DHANVANTHRI ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 009.
3. THE DISTRICT AYUSH OFFICER
GOVERNMENT DISTRICT,
AYUSH HOSPITAL,
MANDYA-571 401.
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
& ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI B.RAJENDRA PRASAD, HCGP.)
-2-
AND :
1. SRI H.C.SRIDHARA MURTHY
S/O LATE H.C.GHANNAGANGANNA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RETIRED SUPERINTENDENT,
GOVERNMENT DISTRICT,
AYUSH HOSPITAL, MANDYA-571 401.
2. SRI B.S.CHETHAN
S/O SRI H.C.SRIDHARA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
BOTH R/AT NO.13, C CROSS,
(NEAR BHAJANE MANE),
DASARAHALLI, MAGADI ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 079. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.RAJASHEKAR, ADV. FOR C/R-2.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE RECORDS IN APPLICATION NO.4522/2017, DATED
20.11.2020 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AS PER
ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners have assailed the order dated
20.11.2020 passed by the Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru ('Tribunal' for short)
in Application No.4522/2017, whereby the application
filed by the respondents has been allowed.
2. Respondents had approached the Tribunal
challenging the orders dated 30.12.2013 and 5.8.2016
rejecting the application for appointment on
compassionate grounds in the place of respondent
No.1, who was permitted to retire voluntarily on medical
grounds. Respondent No.1 while working in the office of
petitioner No.3 has submitted an application along with
the Medical Certificate issued by the Minto Hospital,
Bengaluru, seeking permission to retire voluntarily as
his vision of both eyes deteriorated to the extent of
100% and he was completely unable to discharge his
duties. The petitioner No.2 permitted the respondent
No.1 to voluntarily retire from service on medical
grounds under Rule 285(1)(b) of KCSR w.e.f., 31.1.2013.
Pursuant to which respondent No.1 was relieved from
service w.e.f., 31.1.2013.
3. The respondents sought for appointment of
respondent No.2 to be appointed on compassionate
grounds in the place of respondent No.1 which was
rejected by the petitioners. Hence, Application
No.4522/2017 was filed by the respondents before the
Tribunal which came to be allowed quashing the order
dated 5.8.2016 at Annexure-A18 and the order dated
30.12.2013 at Annexure-A14 issued by petitioner No.1.
Hence, this writ petition by the State.
4. Learned Government Pleader appearing for
the petitioners - State would submit that the Tribunal
ought to have appreciated the prescription (i) appended
to Rule 3(A) of the Karnataka Civil Services
(Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996
('Rules' for short). The respondent No.1 had not
suffered any disability while discharging his duty.
Thus, it was submitted that respondent No.2 was not
entitled to be appointed as Government Servant on
compassionate grounds since no illness or the medical
condition was developed by respondent No.1 during the
course of employment.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the
respondents placing reliance on the Coordinate Bench
ruling of this Court in the case of The State of
Karnataka and others v. Sri Narasimhamurthy N
(W.P.No.45/2019, D.D. 18.3.2020) submitted that the
Coordinate Bench, having considered the identical issue
in the context of Rule 3(A)(i) of the Rules, has quashed
the endorsement issued by petitioner No.2 therein as
regards the rejection of appointment on compassionate
grounds as per the Rules vis-à-vis the order of the
Tribunal setting aside the said order and held that the
order passed by the Tribunal neither suffers from
judicial infirmity nor any error apparent on the face of
the record warranting interference by the Writ Court.
Thus, it was argued that the Tribunal has rightly
allowed the application filed by the respondents which
deserves to be confirmed by this Court.
6. Adverting to the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties and perusing
the material on record, we are of the considered opinion
that the issue involved herein is no more res integra in
view of the Coordinate Bench ruling in
W.P.No.45/2019, referred to supra. In identical
circumstances, the Coordinate Bench referring to Rule
3(A)(i) of the Rules has observed that the dependents of
the Government Servants who have retired on medical
grounds are entitled for recruitment on compassionate
grounds.
7. In the present case, indisputably the
respondent No.1 was incapacitated to discharge his
duties while he was on duty. The Medical Certificate
issued by the Mandya Institute of Medical Sciences
Hospital would disclose that respondent No.1 suffered
100% blindness. After considering the Medical
Certificate and also representation of the respondent
No.1, he was permitted to retire voluntarily on medical
grounds under Rule 285(1)(B) of the KCSR. In this
background, the Tribunal placing reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the
judgments of this Hon'ble Court and the judgment of
the Tribunal, in the light of the notification dated
25.10.2013 held that rejection of the claim of
respondent No.2 is unsustainable in law. The Tribunal
has also observed that when the benefit was extended to
the similarly situated persons referring to Annexure-
A15, letter dated 11.2.2014, even on the ground of
equity, no discrimination could be made to the
respondents.
8. Viewed from any angle, we find no reason to
interfere with the order impugned.
The writ petition, being devoid of merits, stands
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
nd
