Sri.Shivammanavar S Nagaraja vs State Of Karnataka,
2021 Latest Caselaw 1807 Kant

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 22 N D DAY OF MARCH, 2021

                        PRESENT

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

                          AND

          THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

              W.P. NO. 117347/2019 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:

SRI SHIVAMMANAVAR S NAGARAJA,
S/O SHRI JADIYAPPA, AGED 37 YRS,
OCC: NIL, R/O W. NO. 22, URAMMA TEMPLE,
LAKSHMIPURA, SANDUR, BALLARI-583 119.
                                    -        PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DEEPAK C. MAGANUR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS
       SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
       FOREST, ENVIRONMENT & ECOLOGY,
       M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

2.     UNDER SECRETARY (SERVICES),
       FOREST, ENVIRONMENT & ECOLOGY
       DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING,
       BENGALURU-560 001.

3.     PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATION
       OF AROGYA BHAVAN, MALLESHWARAM,
       BENGALURU-560 003.

4.     CHIEF CONSERVATION OFFICER,
       BALLARY CIRCLE, BALLARY-583 101.
                                  :2:


5.   ADDITIONAL FOREST CONSERVATION
     OFFICER, SOCIAL FOREST DEPARTMENT,
     BALLARY-583 101.

6.   ZONAL FOREST OFFICER,
     SOCIAL FOREST DEPARTMENT,
     SANDUR-583 119, BALLARY DIST.
                                  -   RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE)

    THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KAT, BELAGAVI IN
APPLICATION NO. 10809/2019 & ETC.

    THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR, J.,
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

                             ORDER

Heard both sides at the time of admission.

2. Petitioner's father died on 09.01.2017 while in

service. The petitioner's mother made an application to

the respondent on 23.01.2017 seeking appointment on

compassionate grounds to her elder son. Respondent

No.3 rejected the said application by passing an order on

01.02.2018. Thereafter the petitioner made an

application on 05.03.2018 seeking appointment on

compassionate grounds. His application was also rejected

on the ground of delay, as his application was not made

within one year as prescribed under Rule 5 of Karnataka

Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds)

Rules, 1996 (for short 'Rules'). Aggrieved by this order,

the petitioner approached Karnataka Administrative

Tribunal, which also rejected his application by passing

impugned order. Hence, the petitioner is before this

Court.

3. The petitioner's counsel argued that because there

was delay in communicating the order of rejection of the

application made by the mother seeking appointment to

her elder son, the petitioner could not apply within the

time. He is not responsible for delay. According to Rule

6(2) of the Rules, compassionate appointment must be

made within three months from the date of receipt of the

application. This did not happen when an application was

made on behalf of his elder brother. The respondents sat

over the matter for a period of one year and then rejected

first application on the ground that his elder brother was

age barred. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal has

also failed to appreciate this aspect. Therefore, this Court

has to interfere under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India for giving a direction to the

respondents to consider the application of the petitioner.

4. The Principal Government Advocate opposes the writ

petition vehemently by submitting that whatever may be

the reasons, the application seeking compassionate

appointment must be made within one year from the date

of death of the Government servant. There might be

delay in communicating the rejection of the application

made on behalf of the petitioner's elder brother, it does

not give a right to the petitioner to seek appointment on

compassionate ground by making application after one

year. In support of his argument he places reliance on

the judgment of this Court in the case of K.M. Prakash

Vs. State of Karnataka and another (2008) 2 KLJ

222.

5. Though we find that petitioner is not responsible for

the delay, we cannot exercise power under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India to direct the respondents to

consider the petitioner's application sympathetically. The

law does not provide for entertaining any application

made after the expiry of the time prescribed under Rule 5

of the Rules. Moreover, Rule 3 of the Rules clearly says

that seeking appointment on compassionate ground is not

a matter of right, it is only discretion of the Government.

This being the position of law, we cannot entertain the

writ petition. We do not find any infirmity in the

impugned order. Writ petition is dismissed.

SD/-

JUDGE

SD/-

JUDGE bv v