The Divisional Controller And Ors vs Rachamma W/O Dattatraya
2022 Latest Caselaw 2755 Kant

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 2755 Kant
Judgement Date : 18 February, 2022

Karnataka High Court

The Divisional Controller And Ors vs Rachamma W/O Dattatraya on 18 February, 2022

Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar, V Srishananda

                                     1



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                             PRESENT

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

                                  AND

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

         WRIT APPEAL NO.200078/2020 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

1. The Divisional Controller
   N.E.K.R.T.C., Gulbarga Division-1
   Gulbarga-585101.

2. The Chief Personal Manager
   N.E.K.R.T.C., Central Office
   Gulbarga-585101.

3. The Managing Director
   N.E.K.R.T.C., Central Office
   Gulbarga-585101

   (Appellants are represented by the
   Chief Law Officer of N.E.K.R.T.C.)
                                             ... Appellants

(By Sri Deepak V. Barad, Advocate)

AND:

Rachamma W/o Dattaraya
(D/o Late Neelkanthappa)
Aged about 42 years, Occ: Household
R/o Sastri Chouck, Jewargi
Tq. & Dist. Kalaburagi.
                                    2



                                                        ... Respondents

(By Sri Krupa Sagar Patil, Advocate)

       This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High
Court Act, praying to set aside the order dated 25/11/2019 passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P.No.104468/2013, further be pleased to
dismiss the writ petition of respondent.

         This appeal coming on for Orders this day, S.R.Krishna Kumar
J., delivered the following:

                             JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal is directed against the impugned

order dated 25.11.2019 passed in W.P.no.104468/2013

whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the petition filed by

the respondent thereby directing the appellant - NEKRTC to

appoint the respondent on compassionate grounds.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material

on record.

3. The material on record discloses that there is an

undisputed fact that the respondent's father Neelakantappa

who was working in the appellant- NEKRTC expired during

service pursuant to which, the respondent who was his

daughter sought for appointment on compassionate grounds

after obtaining consent/no objection from her mother, wife of

Neelakantappa; it was contended that the respondent was

unmarried as on the date of her application in addition to the

fact that the respondent neither had any brothers nor any rival

applicant seeking appointment on compassionate grounds

upon the demise of her father. The said request/application of

the respondent was rejected by the appellant by issuing the

impugned endorsement dated 07.06.2013 on the ground that

the respondent had got married as on that day.

4. Aggrieved by the impugned endorsement, the

respondent approached this court by way of the aforesaid

petition which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide

the impugned order which is assailed by the NEKRTC in the

present appeal.

5. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that

the learned Single Judge has not only considered the relevant

rules but also has recorded the following findings:

(i) that Neelakantappa, father of the respondent who was working in the NEKRTC had expired during service;

(ii) that the respondent filed an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds and that the respondent was unmarried as on the date of her application;

(iii) that the respondent's mother, viz. widow of Neelakantappa had given her consent/no objection for appointing respondent on compassionate grounds;

(iv) that the respondent did not have any rival applicant/ brothers nor did Neelakantappa leave behind any male issue or other claimants who had applied for compassionate appointment;

(v) that the impugned endorsement dated 07.06.2013 issued by the NEKRTC rejecting the application of the respondent for compassionate appointment was not only contrary to the material on record but also to the relevant rules governing compassionate appointment.

6. Upon re-examining, re-evaluating and re-

appreciating the entire material on record, we are of the

considered opinion that impugned order passed by the

learned Single Judge does not suffer from any illegality or

infirming nor can the same be said to be perverse or

capricious warranting interference by this Court in the present

appeal.

7. It is also significant to note that exclusion of

married daughters from the definition of 'family' in Rules 2 & 3

of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on

Compassionate Grounds), Rules 1996 has been struck down

by a learned Single Judge of this court in the case of