Karnataka High Court
Sri Nikhil P vs The Registrar General on 26 July, 2023
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:25984
WP No. 25215 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.25215 OF 2022 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. NIKHIL P.
S/O LATE S. PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
NO.277, 2ND BLOCK, 3RD PHASE,
BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 085.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRIKANTH M P.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
Digitally signed by
CHAYA S A
Location: High Court
2. THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT
of Karnataka
AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY THE
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA G. GAYATRI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 02.11.2018 ISSUED BY
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:25984
WP No. 25215 of 2022
THE RESPONDENT 1 AND 07.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT 2 VIDE ANNEXURES- D AND E AND INTIMATION
DATED 27.07.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE - F AND 16.11.2022 VIDE
ANNEXURE - H ISSUED BY RESPONDENT 1 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the
Endorsement dated 02.11.2018 issued by the 1st respondent
(Annexure-D) and memo dated 07.11.2018, issued by the 2nd
respondent (Annexure-E), rejecting the application made by the
petitioner for appointment under compassionate ground.
2. Relevant facts for the adjudication of the case are
that, the petitioner claims to be son of one S. Prakash, who
was working as Bailiff in the 2nd respondent-Court and died on
22.12.2016 in harness. It is the case of the petitioner that, the
petitioner being a dependent of his father, made an application
seeking appointment under compassionate ground. The
application made by the petitioner was rejected by the 1st
respondent dated 02.11.2018 (Annexure-D) on the ground
that, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered as the
NC: 2023:KHC:25984
WP No. 25215 of 2022
petitioner do not satisfy Rule 4(1) of the Karnataka Civil
Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules,
1996 (for short, hereinafter referred to as Rule, 1996).
Thereafter, 2nd respondent issued memo dated 07.11.2018
(Annexure-E) rejecting the said application made by the
petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed application dated
06.10.2022, (Annexure-G) replying to the aforementioned
Endorsement, stating that, the Rule 4(1) of the Rules, 1996, is
not applicable to the petitioner's case and said representation
made by the petitioner was rejected by the 1st respondent by
order dated 16.11.2022 (Annexure-H). Feeling aggrieved by
the same, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.
3. I have heard Sri M.P. Srikanth, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner; Sri Raghavendra G. Gayatri, for
learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
4. Sri M. P. Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner contented that, the reasons assigned by the 1st
respondent while rejecting the application made by the
petitioner is contrary to law. He further invited the attention of
the court to Rule 4(1) of the Rules, 1996 and and submitted
NC: 2023:KHC:25984
WP No. 25215 of 2022
that, proviso has been incorporated by notification dated
09.04.2021 to Rule 4(1) of the Rules, 1996, in that view of the
matter, though the mother of the petitioner is working as First
Division Assistant in High Court of Karnataka, the salary
accrued to the mother of the petitioner, cannot be a basis to
reject the application made by the petitioner. Accordingly, he
sought interference of this court.
5. Per contra, Sri Raghavendra G. Gayatri, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted
that, the application made by the petitioner has been rejected
on 07.11.2018 (Annexure-E) and therefore, the writ petition is
liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, in not
questioning the rejection order, in time. He also refers to
paragraph 4 of the Statement of Objections and submitted that
the mother of the petitioner is working as First Division
Assistant in the High Court of Karnataka and her annual income
is Rs.7,20,288/-. Therefore, he contended that, the application
made by the petitioner cannot be considered, as the income of
the mother of the petitioner is above the ceiling limit and the
petitioner cannot be considered as dependant of the deceased
employee, as the mother of the petitioner is working in the
NC: 2023:KHC:25984
WP No. 25215 of 2022
High Court of Karnataka. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal
of the writ petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, it is not in dispute that, the father of the petitioner-S.
Prakash, died on 22.12.2016, while he was working as Bailiff in
the 2nd respondent-Court. It is also not disputed by the parties
that, the mother of the petitioner is working as First Division
Assistant in the High Court of Karnataka and the perusal of
paragraph 4 of the Statement of Objections would indicate that,
the petitioner is not suffering from financial crisis or become
destitute on account of death of the his father as the mother of
the petitioner is earning and working at High Court of
Karnataka. Therefore, following the declaration of law made by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Maharashtra and another vs. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate
reported AIR 2022 SC 5196, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that, if the widow of the deceased is working, the
children cannot be considered as destitute. Paragraphs 7 and
7.1 of the said judgment reads as under.
"7. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in
the aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment
NC: 2023:KHC:25984
WP No. 25215 of 2022
is an exception to the general rule of appointment in
the public services and is in favour of the dependents
of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family
in penury and without any means of livelihood, and
in such cases, out of pure humanitarian
consideration taking into consideration the fact that
unless some source of livelihood is provided, the
family would not be able to make both ends meet, a
provision is made in the rules to provide gainful
employment to one of the dependants of the
deceased who may be eligible for such employment.
The whole object of granting compassionate
employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide
over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such
family a post much less a post held by the deceased.
7.1 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the
aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand,
to appoint the respondent now on compassionate
ground shall be contrary to the object and purpose of
appointment on compassionate ground. The
respondent cannot be said to be dependent on the
deceased employee, i.e., her mother. Even
otherwise, she shall not be entitled to appointment
on compassionate ground after a number of years
from the death of the deceased employee."
NC: 2023:KHC:25984
WP No. 25215 of 2022
7. Nextly, Sri M.P. Srikanth, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner refers to the proviso to Rule 4 (1) of Rules,
1996, which has been inserted by notification dated
09.04.2021. It is to be noted that, by the time amendment is
made to the said Rule, the application made by the petitioner
was considered and rejected on 07.11.2018. Further, the
Division Bench of this Court, in Writ Petition No.200703 of 2016
by order dated 23.08.2016, at paragraph 4, held as follows:
"4. The controversy in the present writ
petition is also squarely covered by the said
judgment. Therefore, the present writ petition filed
by the State also deserved to be dismissed for the
same reasons. the petitioners i.e. authorities of the
State are directed to consider the application of the
respondent for compassionate appointment in
accordance with the Rules 1996 as they exists as on
the time of the death of Government Servant without
reference to the later amendments, within a period
of three months from today. No costs."
8. The Division Bench of this Court, in the said
paragraph has held that, the amendment to the
aforementioned Rule is prospective in nature. Under these facts
NC: 2023:KHC:25984
WP No. 25215 of 2022
and circumstances of the case and by following the declaration
of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.C.
Snathosh, vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in
2020 (7) SCC 617, I am of the view that, the petitioner has
not made out a case for interference of this Court. Accordingly,
the writ petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE
SB
