Mrs Megha J vs Life Insurance Corporation Of ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6835 Kant

                                               -1-
                                                       NC: 2023:KHC:35178-DB
                                                         WA No. 891 of 2023



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                         DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

                                           PRESENT

                   THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE

                                              AND

                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

                             WRIT APPEAL NO. 891 OF 2023 (S-RES)

                   BETWEEN:

                   MRS MEGHA J,
                   D/O. LATE SRI. K. JAYASHANKAR,
                   AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
                   R/AT NO. 186/A, SANNIDHI, 30TH MAIN,
                   27TH CROSS, SIDDALINGESHWARA LAYOUT,
                   J P NAGAR, MYSORE - 560 008.
                                                                 ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI. MAHABALESH K PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR
                       SRI. VIJETHA R NAIK.,ADVOCATE)

                   AND:
Digitally signed
by SHARADA         1.    LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA (LIC)
VANI B                   CENTRAL OFFICE, YOGASHEMA JEEVAN BIMA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                 MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021.
KARNATAKA                REP. BY BRANCH HEAD/MANAGER

                   2.    SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER
                         LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
                         DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MYSURU- 560 008.
                                                               ...RESPONDENTS

                        THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
                   HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER
                   DATED 19/06/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
                   IN WP NO.11957/2023 AND ETC.,
                             -2-
                                      NC: 2023:KHC:35178-DB
                                         WA No. 891 of 2023



     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal by the writ petitioner seeks to

call in question a learned Single Judge's order dated

19.06.2023 whereby W.P.No.11957/2023 (S-RES) has

been dismissed and as a consequence the claim for

compassionate appointment is turned down.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

even a married daughter is entitled to compassionate

appointment on par with a son of an employee, dying in

harness, the impugned order running counter to this

proposition being unsustainable is liable to be voided.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the

appellant and perused the appeal papers, we decline

indulgence in the matter broadly being in agreement with

the reasoning of the learned Single Judge as reflected in

the impugned order. Father of the appellant namely,

Sri K.Jayashankar who was working as a Branch Manager

in LIC died in harness on 28.09.2021 is true. The appellant

NC: 2023:KHC:35178-DB WA No. 891 of 2023

was admittedly married away long before this. The LIC

Recruitment of Staff Instructions vide Clause 21 (ii)

exclude a married daughter from being eligible for

appointment on compassionate basis. These Instructions

having the statutory flavour partake the character of sub-

ordinate legislation. In the absence of any challenge being

laid to their validity, there is a presumption that they are

valid and enforceable. The Apex Court decision in a recent

decision that is Dhanraj vs. Vikram Singh 2023 SCC Online

SC 724 at para 13 has observed as under:-

"13. We are of the view that in absence of any specific challenge to the validity of the statutory provisions, the High Court ought not to have undertaken the exercise of going into the question of repugnancy. We fail to understand the propriety of the observation that the law departments of the State and the Union should have a dialogue to remove the discrepancy. Moreover, the High Court has not proceeded to strike down the relevant provisions which were held to be repugnant to PESA. It only directs that till the discrepancy is removed by the legislature, certain provisions of the 1961 Act and the rules framed thereunder shall be ignored. Such approach by the writ Court is not at all called for. Without holding that the statutory provisions are not constitutionally valid, the

NC: 2023:KHC:35178-DB WA No. 891 of 2023

High Court could not have issued a direction not to implement the statutory provisions."

4. Learned Single Judge has rightly relied upon the

Apex Court decision in State of Maharashtra vs. Madhuri

Maruti Vidhate AIR 2022 SC 5176 to the effect that a

married daughter residing in the matrimonial home

ordinarily cannot be treated as a dependent on her father.

Our scriptures injunct "bharta rakshati yavvane..." literally

meaning that it is the duty of husband to provide

maintenance to his dependent wife. That is how our

legislations too are structured e.g., Section 125 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (applicable to all

regardless of religions), Sections 24 & 25 of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 (applicable to Hindus, in a broad sense

of the term), Section 37 of the Divorce Act, 1869

(applicable to Christians), Section 40 of the Parsi Marriage

and Divorce Act, 1936 (applicable to Parsis), Section 20 of

the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,

2005 (applicable to all persons regardless of religion and

marital status), Sections 36 & 37 of the Special Marriage

NC: 2023:KHC:35178-DB WA No. 891 of 2023

Act, 1954, The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on

Marriage) Act, 2019 (applicable to Muslims wives), etc.,

have been structured. No binding rule or ruling that

guarantees right of maintenance to the married daughter

residing with the husband qua the father, is brought to our

notice.

5. It hardly needs to be stated that the

appointment on compassionate ground avails as an

exception to the rule of equality enacted in Articles 14 and

16 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court in Bank of

Baroda vs. Baljit Singh 2023 SCC OnLine SC 745 has

reiterated that the compassionate appointment is a

concession and therefore, cannot be claimed as a matter

of right; the job aspirants on this ground need to satisfy

the criteria laid down in the extant rules/schemes. Added,

the right to claim such appointment is conditioned by the

fact that the family of the employee dying in harness is in

financial distress and therefore, needs to be tided over.

However, that is not the case here inasmuch as the

NC: 2023:KHC:35178-DB WA No. 891 of 2023

respondent-LIC has paid the terminal benefits of the

deceased employee in a whopping sum of

Rs.1,58,06,025/- which metaphorically speaking, is an

astronomical figure. Even if recovery of Rs.27,35,616/- is

made by way of deduction, still what remains is a sizeable

amount. By no stretch of imagination, the members of the

family, assuming that a married daughter too happens to

be one, therefore, cannot argue of financial distress.

6. The reliance on a learned Single Judge's

decision in Bhuvaneshwara V. Puranik vs. State of

Karnataka 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3397 could not much

come to the aid of the appellant inasmuch as that case

related to a specific challenge to a particular provision in

the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on

Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, that was eventually

struck down on being challenged. We also notice that, the

Government being the rule making authority under the

provisions of the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978

has put an end to the discrimination of daughters on

NC: 2023:KHC:35178-DB WA No. 891 of 2023

marriage per se, by amending these rules. Even otherwise,

we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the

learned Single Judge.

In the above circumstances, this writ appeal being

devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly is rejected

in limine.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Snb/