Karnataka High Court
Hashmatha vs State Of Karnataka on 5 January, 2022
Bench: R Natarajpresided Byrnj
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.105112 OF 2021 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
HASHMATHA
W/O. MIRJA GALIB,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: SAJJANKERI VILLAGE, J.N. KOTE, POST: 577532
TQ AND DIST: CHITRADURGA.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPT. OF POWER AND ENERGY
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU-01.
2. THE DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
CORPORATE OFFICE, KAVERI BHAVAN,
BENGALURU - 560009.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (ELE),
:2:
O & M DIVISION, COURT ROAD, HESCOM,
SIRSI-581401 DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECL),
O & M DIVISION, COURT ROAD, HESCOM,
SIRSI-581401 DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINAYAK S. KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1
SRI. SHIVARAJ MUDHOL, ADV FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARY QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED
10.11.2020 IN NO.KANIEM(V)/LEA/SLEA/CS-3/2020-21/9811-13
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND
ENDORSEMENT DATED 25.03.2021 IN NO.AEO(V)/ULENI/HIS-
A/K-85/2020-21/12666-67 VIDE ANNEXURE-J, ISSUED BY 3RD
RESPONDENT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of
certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 10.11.2015 passed by
respondent No.4 and the endorsement dated 25.03.2021 passed
by respondent No.3. The petitioner has also sought for a writ in
the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider
the application dated 08.10.2020, 04.03.2021 and 14.06.2021.
2. The petitioner claims that her son was employed as a
Meter Reader at the office of respondent No.3 and that he died in
service on 09.08.2020, while his wife pre deceased him on
23.06.2020. The petitioner claims that she was dependant upon
the deceased for her livelihood and therefore filed an application
on 08.10.2020 seeking appointment to her second son on
compassionate ground. However, the said application was
rejected by respondent No.3 in terms of endorsement dated
10.11.2020 on the ground that the rules relating to
compassionate appointment of the year 2012 did not provide for
appointment to the brother of the deceased. Later, the
petitioner file G and WC No.16/2020 for appointing her as the
guardian of the son of the deceased and that the Court by
judgment dated 03.02.2021 appointed the petitioner her as a
guardian. The petitioner claims that the rules relating to
compassionate appointment was amended by notification dated
02.02.2021. Based on the said order and the amended rules,
the petitioner filed an application on 04.03.2021 for appointment
on compassionate ground, which also was not considered
favourably but was rejected in terms of an endorsement dated
25.03.2021, again based o n the Rules of 2012. The petitioner
thereafter filed another application on 14.06.2021 to appoint her
second son on compassionate ground.
3. Aggrieved by the orders of rejection dated
10.11.2020 and 25.03.2021, the petitioner has filed this writ
petition.
4. During the pendency of this writ petition the learned
counsel for the petitioner placed on record a letter dated
19.11.2021 (Annexure-L) addressed by respondent No.2 to the
respondent No.3 for re-consideration of the claim of the
petitioner in accordance with the Karnataka Electricity Board
Employees Appointment of Compassionate Ground Rule 1997 as
amended till 08.11.2021. The learned counsel submitted that in
view of this later development, the respondents may be directed
to reconsider the case of the petitioner. The learned counsel for
the respondents submit that since the issue is now under
consideration before respondent No.3, the case of the petitioner
would be considered in accordance with Rules of 1997 as
amended up to 08.11.2011.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission, impugned
endorsement issued by respondent No.4 and 3 as stated above
are hereby quashed. The respondent No.3 is directed to re-
consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law and as
per the prevalent rules relating to appointment on
compassionate grounds. This shall be complied within a period
of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order. This Court has not expressed any opinion on merits and
the case of the petitioner may be considered in accordance with
law.
6. In view of disposal of the writ petition, I.A.
No.2/2021 does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMM
