Karnataka High Court
Smt Mamata Girish Vibhuti vs The Karnataka Power Transmission ... on 5 April, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
WP No. 103988 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF APRIL 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 103988 OF 2022 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. MAMATA GIRISH VIBHUTI,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
RESIDING AT PLOT 105,
SECTOR NO.12,
MAHANTESH NAGAR,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT-590016.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MADANGOUDA N. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BANALORE 560009,
R/BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (A & HR).
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE),
Digitally signed
O & M URBAN DIVISION HESCOM,
NEHRU NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590010.
by
VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI
VIJAYALAKSHMI Location: HIGH
M KANKUPPI COURT OF
... RESPONDENTS
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2024.04.06
10:56:04 +0530
(BY SRI. B.S. KAMATE, ADV. FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE THE WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT NO.
BENAVE / KA.NI.IM(VE) / LE / SALE / HISA(SA) / 2021-22 / 1204-05
DATED 14.06.2021 AND ENDORSEMENT NO. BENAVE / KA.NI.IM(VE)
/ LE / SALE /HISA(SA) / 2021-22/9613-14 DATED 30.03.2022
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.02 VIDE ANNEXURE-"E" AND "H"
AND THE PETITIONER MAY KINDLY BE APPOINTED FOR F.D.A. POST
ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND IN INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
-2-
WP No. 103988 of 2022
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
27.03.2024 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed to quash the endorsement dated
14.06.2021 and endorsement dated 30.03.2022 issued by
respondent No.2 vide annexure-E and H and prayed to
appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground as First
Division Assistant.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for respondents.
3. The brother of the petitioner namely Sri
Rachayya Ashok Kerimath was serving as Linemen in the
office of the respondent No.2. He died on 29.05.2020
while in service. He expired, living behind his five sisters
including the petitioner. The petitioner submitted
application before respondent No.2 along with documents
seeking appointment on compassionate ground.
Respondent No.2 issued an endorsement dated
14.06.2022 (annexure-E) stating that there is no provision
appointing the sister on compassionate ground under the
Rules. Respondent No.2 has issued an endorsement
(annexure-H) stating that the petitioner is sister of the
deceased and she is not entitled for appointment on
compassionate ground under the Rules. The said
endorsement has been issued in reply to the application
filed by the petitioner dated 18.12.2021. The petitioner
challenging the said endorsements annexure-E and H has
filed the present writ petition.
4. The appointment on compassionate ground in
respondent-office is governed by the Karnataka Electricity
Board Employees' Recruitment (Appointment on
Compassionate Grounds) Regulations, 1997. The terms
"Dependant of a deceased Board employee" and "Family"
are defined in Regulation 2, which reds thus,
"2. Definitions.-(1) In these regulations, unless the
context otherwise requires.-
(a) "Dependent of a deceased Board
employee" means his widow, son and
unmarried daughter who were wholly
dependent upon him and were living jointly
with him;
(b) "Family" in relation to a deceased Board
employee shall mean only his or her legally
wedded spouse, and their sons whether
married or unmarried and unmarried
daughters who were jointly living with him."
5. The said Regulation came to be amended by
notification dated 08.11.2021 which were brought into
effect from 09.04.2021. With the said amendment the
following has been inserted in Regulation 2 (b)
"F ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À GzÉÝñÀPÁÌV "PÀÄlÄA§" JAzÀgÉ:-
i. ªÀÄÈvÀ ¥ÀÅgÀĵÀ «ªÁ»vÀ ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ £ËPÀgÀ£À ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è, DvÀ£À ªÉÄÃ.É
CªÀ®A©vÀgÁVzÀÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DvÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÝ DvÀ£À «zsÀªÁ ¥Àwß, ªÀÄUÀ
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ (C«ªÁ»vÀ/«ªÁ»vÀ/«ZÉÒâvÀ/«zsÀªÉ):
ii. ªÀÄÈvÀ ªÀÄ»¼Á «ªÁ»vÀ ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ £ËPÀgÀ¼À ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è, DPÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ.É
CªÀ®A©vÀgÁVzÀÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DPÉAiÉÆA¢UÉ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÝ DPÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ, ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ
(C«ªÁ»vÀ/«ªÁ»vÀ/«ZÉÒâvÀ/«zsÀªÉ) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ «zsÀÄgÀ ¥Àw:
iii. ªÀÄÈvÀ ¥ÀÅgÀĵÀ C«ªÁ»vÀ ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ £ËPÀgÀ£À ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è, DvÀ£À ªÉÄÃ.É
CªÀ®A©vÀgÁVzÀÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DvÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÝ DvÀ£À ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀ CxÀªÁ
¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀj.
iv. ªÀÄÈvÀ ªÀÄ»¼Á C«ªÁ»vÀ ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ £ËPÀgÀ¼À ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è, DPÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ.É
CªÀ®A©vÀgÁVzÀÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DPÉAiÉÆA¢UÉ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÝ DPÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀ CxÀªÁ
¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀj.
V. ªÀÄÈvÀ «ªÁ»vÀ ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ £ËPÀgÀ£À/¼À ¥Àwß/¥Àw FUÁUÀ.Éà ¤zsÀ£ÀgÁVzÀÄÝ
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DvÀ/DPÉAiÀÄ C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĸÀÌ ªÀÄPÀ̽zÁÝUÀ ¸ÀA§A¢üvÀ PÁ£ÀƤ£À
G¥À§AzsÀUÀ¼À£ÀéAiÀÄ CªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ªÁ¹¸ÀĪÀ ºÁUÀÆ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÉÇö¸ÀĪÀ
¥ÀæªÀiÁtÂÃPÀÈvÀ ¥ÉÇõÀPÀgÀÄ;"
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
contended that the amendment to the Regulations
included sister of the not unmarried male Board employee
and the said amendment came into effect from
09.04.2021. As per notification dated 08.11.2021 and as
on that date of the application filed by the petitioner dated
30.04.2021 was pending/made. Thereafter, in view of the
amendment notification Regulation 6(6) a specific
provision is made that all pending applications to be
considered under amended Regulations.
7. Learned counsel for respondents has contended
that it is date of the death of the employee which is to be
taken into consideration, not the date of application and
Regulation prevailing as on the date of the death of the
employee which required to be applied. On that point he
placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Secretary to Government Department
Education (Primary) and Others Vs Bheemesh alias
Bheemappa1, wherein it is held as under
"20. The important aspect about the conflict of
opinion is that it revolves around two dates, namely,
(i) date of death of the employee; and (ii) date of
consideration of the application of the dependant.
Out of these two dates, only one, namely, the date
of death alone is a fixed factor that does not change.
The next date, namely, the date of consideration of
the claim, is something that depends upon many
variables such as the date of filing of application, the
date of attaining of majority of the claimant and the
date on which the file is put up to the competent
authority. There is no principle of statutory
interpretation which permits a decision on the
applicability of a rule, to be based upon an
indeterminate or variable factor. Let us take for
instance a hypothetical case where 2 government
servants die in harness on 1-1-2020. Let us assume
that the dependants of these 2 deceased
government servants make applications for
appointment on 2 different dates say 29-5-2020 and
2-6-2020 and a modified Scheme comes into force
on 1-6-2020. If the date of consideration of the claim
is taken to be the criteria for determining whether
the modified Scheme applies or not, it will lead to
two different results, one in respect of the person
(2021) 20 SCC 707
who made the application before 1-6-2020 and
another in respect of the person who applied after 1-
6-2020. In other words, if two employees die on the
same date and the dependants of those employees
apply on two different dates, one before the modified
Scheme comes into force and another thereafter,
they will come in for differential treatment if the date
of application and the date of consideration of the
same are taken to be the deciding factor. A rule of
interpretation which produces different results,
depending upon what the individuals do or do not do,
is inconceivable. This is why, the managements of a
few banks, in the cases tabulated above, have
introduced a rule in the modified scheme itself,
which provides for all pending applications to be
decided under the new/modified scheme. Therefore,
we are of the considered view that the interpretation
as to the applicability of a modified Scheme should
depend only upon a determinate and fixed criteria
such as the date of death and not an indeterminate
and variable factor."
8. In view of the above interpretation made by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, the Regulation prevailing on the date
of the death of the employee required to be applied and
not the date of the application seeking the appointment on
compassionate ground. The Hon'ble Apex Court even has
taken into consideration the amended Regulations to be
applied to the pending applications in the last portion of
the paragraph which is extracted (supra). The Hon'ble
Apex Court inspite of the said amended Regulations
applicable to pending applications under Regulations 6(6),
interpreted held that the date of the death which is to be
taken into consideration and Regulations prevailing on the
date of the death are to be applied.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing
reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court rendered in W.A.No.1030/2021 contended that
amended Regulations is to be applied retrospectively. In
the said case, Division Bench of this Court has not taken
into consideration of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Bheemesh alias Bheemappa(supra)
and therefore, the said decision cannot be relied upon.
10. Coming to the case on hand, the employee died
on 29.05.2020 and amendment to the Regulations as
notified by notification dated 08.11.2021 came into effect
from 09.04.2021. Merely because the application for
appointment was taken for consideration after the
amendment, the petitioner could not have sought the
benefits of the amendment. Respondent No.2 is justified
in issuing the impugned endorsements (annexure-E and
H).
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DSP
CT:BCK
