Karnataka High Court
Amananayak @ Ramanjani S/O ... vs Divisional Controller on 24 September, 2021
Author: R.Nataraj
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
W. P. No.200237/2021 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
AMANANAYAK @ RAMANJANI,
S/O HONERAPPA,
AGE:20 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
R/O C/O K.H. VENKATESH
DARBAARI,
RETD. KSRTC CONTROLLER,
RAMKARGALLI,
SHORAPUR, TQ: SHORAPUR,
DIST: YADGIR-585 244.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHAITANYAKUMAR CHANDRIKI, ADVOCATE)
AND :
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
NEKRTC, DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
RAICHUR,
DIST: RAICHUR-584 101.
.. RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RATNA N. SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
HON`BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED
28.12.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-K TO THE PETITION ISSUED
BY THE RESPONDENT AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATION VIDE ANNEXURE-F TO THE PETITION
DATED 22.04.2016 IN VIEW OF THE GROUNDS STATED IN
THE PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged an endorsement dated
28.12.2020 issued by the respondent rejecting the claim of
the petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate
grounds.
2. The father of the petitioner was employed as a
driver by the respondent. He died on 31.08.2001 while in
service.
3. The mother of the petitioner filed an
application seeking grant of appointment on
compassionate grounds on 18.10.2004 describing herself
as 'Vijayabharati @ Laxmidevi'. Unfortunately, she too
died on 28.03.2014. The respondent did not consider the
case of the mother of the petitioner for grant of
appointment on compassionate grounds for well over 10
years. The petitioner herein is their son who also filed an
application on 22.04.2016 seeking grant of appointment on
compassionate grounds. The said application came to be
rejected by the respondent on the ground that the name of
the mother of the petitioner was shown in all the academic
records as 'Vijayabharati' while the name of a person
named 'Lakshmidevi' was mentioned in the service
records. Therefore, the respondent held that there was a
doubt regarding the claim of the petitioner and thus
rejected it.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that Smt.Laxmidevi and Smt.Vijayabharati are
one and the same person and invited the attention of the
Court to the survival certificate - Annexure 'G3'. It
indicates the name of the mother of the petitioner as
Vijayabharati @ Laxmidevi. He therefore submitted that
the impugned endorsement deserves to be set aside.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondent submitted that the petitioner ought to have
obtained a declaration from the Civil Court.
6. It is sad that the respondent, who was bound
to provide immediate employment to one of the
dependents of the deceased employee, sat over the
application of the mother of the petitioner for well over 10
years. The petitioner, who is now aged 21 years, has been
fighting a long drawn litigation from the year 2016 and the
respondents have stonewalled the case of the petitioner by
citing reasons which are too technical in nature. If there
were no claims for appointment on compassionate grounds
received in respect of the father of the petitioner, there is
no reason why the claim of the petitioner cannot be
considered, having regard to the fact that the petitioner
has lost both his parents.
7. In that view of the matter, the impugned
endorsement dated 28.12.2020 issued by the respondent
is quashed. The respondent is directed to consider the
case of the petitioner for grant of appointment within a
period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this judgment.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE
sma
