T Gowramma vs The Divisional Controller
2021 Latest Caselaw 2614 Kant

                                1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
        DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
                           BEFORE
     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI

     WRIT PETITION NO.24457/2017 (S-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:

1.   T. GOWRAMMA
     W/O Y.M.NARASIMHAMURTHY
     AGE 58 YEARS,

2.   Y.N.MOHANA KUMARI
     D/O Y.M.NARASIMHAMURTHY
     AGE 39 YEARS,
     BOTH ARE R/AT NO.118, 5TH CROSS,
     NISARGA LAYOUT,
     M.E.I. GROUND,
     BAGALAGUNTE BONE MILL,
     BENGALURU - 560 088
                                                 ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. SHEKAR L., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
K.S.R.T.C.
BENGALURU CENTRAL DIVISION,
K.H.ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
                                                 ... RESPONDENT

(BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR
ORDER IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDR VIDE No.PÀgÁ¸Á/¨ÉAPÉë/¹§âA¢/CD/255/2017-18 ¢£ÁAPÀ
21.04.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT; AND
ETC.
                                     2




     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B'
GROUP THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING / VIDEO CONFERENCING
HEARING (OPTIONAL), THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-

                                 ORDER

In the instant petition, petitioner has assailed the

communication dated 21.04.2017 and further sought for

direction to the respondent-Corporation to appoint the second

petitioner on compassionate ground. Deceased workman one

Sri. Y.M. Narasimhamurthy was appointed as a conductor with

the respondent-Corporation on 16.08.1977. On certain

allegations, he was subjected to domestic enquiry and it was

concluded in imposition of penalty of dismissal from service on

19.05.2005 and it was subject matter before Labour Court.

Award was in favour of the deceased employee on 16.04.2010.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award dated

16.04.2010, respondent-Corporation preferred

W.P.No.8691/2013 and it was disposed of on 18.02.2014. While

modifying the award passed by the Labour Court, para 2 of the

order passed in W.P.No.8691/2013 reads as under:

2. Regard being had to the nature of charges against the workman which have not been proved as held by the Labour Court in the award based upon facts, the fact finding Court having come to the certain conclusions, it is not fair for this Court

to sit in judgment over said facts. Without making this order as a precedent, the petitioner-Corporation is directed to treat the respondent-workman as having retired from service as on the date of his death and pay the legal representatives, the retirement benefits to the workman. The award of the Labour Court stands modified, accordingly.

2. Petitioner submitted representation on 23.03.2017 to

provide employment to 2nd petitioner and it was rejected on

21.04.2017. Hence, the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that in

view of the order passed in W.P.No.8691/2013 that the deceased

employee is treated as having retired from service as on the date

of his death amounts to deceased employee died while he was in

service. Therefore, there is an infirmity in the communication

dated 21.04.2017. Hence, petitioners are entitled to relief of

compassionate appointment to the 2nd petitioner.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-

Corporation pointed out from the order dated 18.02.2014 passed

in W.P.No.8691/2013, the order is in respect of modification of

the award and the deceased workman has been treated as

retired from service on the date of his death. Therefore,

question of considering petitioner's grievance relating to

compassionate appointment does not arise. Compassionate

appointment could be given under the circumstances that if a

deceased employee died while he was in service.

5. Heard the learned counsel for respective parties.

6. Question for consideration in the present petition is

whether 2nd petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment

or not. Undisputed facts are that, deceased employee was

dismissed from service on 19.05.2005. Award was passed in

favour of the employee and it was subject matter in

W.P.No.8691/2013 and which was decided on 18.02.2014.

Perusal of the order dated 18.02.2014, it is crystal clear that the

deceased employee is deemed to be retired from service as on

the date of his death. No doubt on these facts and

circumstances, question of providing appointment on

compassionate ground to the petitioner No.2 is not available.

Compassionate appointment could be extended only if a

deceased employee died while he was in service. In the present

case, deceased employee was dismissed from service and on

sympathy this Court has treated the workman as having retired

from service on the date of his death in order to extend certain

monitory benefits/retiral benefits as is evident from the order

passed in W.P.No.8691/2013. Thus, petitioners have not made

out a case so as to interfere with the impugned communication

dated 21.04.2017 (Annexure-A).

Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE pgg