Bashira Lalsab Mokashi vs The Hubballi Electricity Supply
2023 Latest Caselaw 951 Kant

                                              -1-




                                                      WP NO.109538 OF 2019


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                            DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                                            BEFORE
                              THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
                          WRIT PETITION NO.109538 OF 2019 (S-RES)
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   BASHIRA LALSAB MOKASHI
                        AGE: 24 YEARS,
                        OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
                        R/O: WARD NO.5,
                        HALEPETE,
                        TQ: BADAMI,
                        DIST: BAGALKOTE.

                                                               ...PETITIONER

                   (BY SRI SHARANABASAVARAJ,
                   FOR SRI GANGADHAR J.M. ADVOCATE)
                   AND:

                   1.   THE HUBBALLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
                        COMPANY LIMITED,
J                       BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER
MAMATHA
                        (ADMN and HRD),
Digitally signed
by J MAMATHA
Date: 2023.01.23
                        HESCOM, HUBBALLI.
11:24:21 +0530


                   2.   THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
                        O and M DIVISION, HESCOM,
                        BAGALKAOTE.

                                                             ...RESPONDENTS

                   (BY SRI B S KAMATE, ADVOCATE)

                          SUBMITTED:- VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 26.11.2019,
                                   -2-




                                           WP NO.109538 OF 2019


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.
BGK/KANIEEM(VI)/LE/SALE-1/HISA(SA)/18-19/17931 DATED
15.3.2019 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT VIDE
ANNEXURE-D.
     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                             ORDER

Petitioner in this petition has challenged the endorsement

dated 15th March, 2019 passed by the respondent No.2

rejecting the application made by the petitioner for

appointment on compassionate ground.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the father of the

petitioner-Lalasaheb Bubasheb Mokashi was working as

Mechanic Grade-II with the respondent-Corporation and he died

on 16th September, 2017 while he was in service. On account

of the death of her father, the family of the petitioner has

become destitute and accordingly, wife of the deceased-

Mokashi filed an application on 05th July, 2018 to the second

respondent of Corporation to seeking appointment on

compassionate ground in favour of the petitioner herein.

However, the said application has been rejected by impugned

endorsement by the respondent-Corporation that there is no

WP NO.109538 OF 2019

provision in their service rules, providing appointment to the

married daughter on compassionate ground. Being aggrieved

by the same, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.

3. Heard Sri Sharanabasavaraj, learned Counsel

appearing for Sri Gangadhar J.M., for the petitioner and Sri B.S.

Kamte, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-

Corporation.

4. Sri Sharanabasavaraj appearing on behalf of

Gangadhar J.M, for the petitioner contended that, due to the

death of her father, the entire family of the petitioner has been

suffering financially and therefore, the mother of petitioner

made an application to the respondent-Corporation seeking

appointment on compassionate ground and same has been

rejected by the respondent-Corporation. He submitted that the

reasons assigned by the respondent-Corporation is contrary to

Article 14 of the Constitution of India and accordingly sought

for interference of this court. He also placed reliance on the

judgment of this Court in the case of R. JAYAMMA V.

KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHES reported in ILR

1982 KAR 3416.

WP NO.109538 OF 2019

5. Per contra, Sri B.S. Kamate, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent-Corporation argued that there is

no rules in the respondent-Corporation providing appointment

to the married daughter of the deceased employee and

therefore, sought for dismissal of petition. He also relied un

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER v. MADHURI MARUTI

VIDHATE (SINCE AFTER MARRIAGE MADHURI SANTOSH KOLI)

reported in AIR 2022 SC 5176 and argued that the petitioner

herein is married and is not dependent of the deceased-

employee's family and accordingly, sought to justify the

impugned endorsement dated 15th March, 2019 issued by the

respondent-Corporation.

6. In the light of the submission learned counsel

appearing for the parties on careful examination of the writ

papers, the same would indicate that the petitioner married and

settled at her conjugal home. Taking into consideration the

factual aspects that though the father of the petitioner died on

16th September, 2017, but the petitioner has failed to prove

that she is depending upon the earnings of the deceased father.

In that view of the matter, following the law declared by the

WP NO.109538 OF 2019

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned decision and

considering the fact that the petitioner is not depending upon

the earnings of her deceased father and she is residing at her

conjugal home, I am of the view that the impugned

endorsement issued by the respondent-Corporation is just and

proper. In that view of the matter, the judgment referred to by

the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the case of

R. JAYAMMA (supra) cannot be accepted. Writ petition

accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

LNN