Karnataka High Court
The Management Of Nwkrtc vs Shabana Begum D/O Jalar Saheb Hanchinal on 5 August, 2024
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11005-DB
WA No.100413 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.100413 OF 2022 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC
CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD,
HUBLI 580030.
R/BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
TQ. HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHABANA BEGUM D/O. JALAR SAHEB HANCHINAL,
W/O. IBRAHIMSAHEB MULLA,
AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
RES. HALLADAR ONI, NAVALGUND-582208,
TQ. NAVALGUND, DIST. DHARWAD.
Digitally signed
by JAGADISH T R
Location: High
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Court of DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT,
Karnataka
Dharwad Bench M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001,
R/BY. ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE
ABOVE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06/12/2021
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO.104275/2021
AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11005-DB
WA No.100413 of 2022
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT)
1. This Intra Court appeal by the Management of
State Road Transport Corporation seeks to call in question
a learned Single Judge's order dated 06.12.2021 whereby
private respondent's W.P. No.104275/2021 (S-RES)
having been favoured the appellant-Management herein
has been directed to consider petitioner's case for
appointment on compassionate grounds in accordance
with KSRTC (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds)
Rules, 2018, and in the light of another learned Single
Judge's order passed in W.P. No.147888/2020 within a
period of three months.
2. Learned panel counsel appearing for the
appellant-Management vehemently argues that on the
ground of marriage, a woman cannot be denied
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11005-DB
appointment on compassionate ground, is true; however,
there are other requirements such as dependency of the
claimant on the bread-winner of the family who died in
harness; there being, absolutely, no averment as to these
aspects, the learned Single Judge could not have allowed
the writ petition in a casual way. Learned counsel
appearing for the private respondent, who happened to be
the writ petitioner, vehemently resists the appeal making
submission in justification of the impugned order and the
reasons on which it has been constructed.
3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we are
inclined to grant indulgence in the matter broadly being in
agreement with the submission made on behalf of the
appellant. The world is moving towards gender equality
and India being a signatory to the International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women, an entity which answers
the description of State under Article 12 of the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11005-DB
Constitution of India cannot discriminate woman on the
ground of marriage per se, in the matter of employment,
is true. That is the reason why the Rule denying
compassionate appointment to the married women has
been done away with. However, that does not mean that,
every married woman is entitled to compassionate
appointment on the death of bread-winner of the natal
family.
4. It has been settled position of law that in order
to claim compassionate appointment, the claimant has to
prima facie show that she belongs to the family of the
employee who died in harness and that because of death
her family is in financial distress. There is absolutely no
pleading in the petition in this regard. Even the documents
produced along with the petition also do not say about the
same. Ordinarily, after marriage, the married woman joins
matrimonial home of the husband, whichever be the
religion/faith she belongs to, subject to all just exceptions.
One of such exceptions is, Aliya-Santaana Family;
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11005-DB
however, the case of the respondent/claimant is not of
that exception. Nothing is stated by the claimant that she
has been residing with the natal family even after
marriage and that her husband is not in a position to look
after her. It hardly needs to be mentioned that, it is the
duty of the husband, whichever be the religion/faith, to
take care off his wife & children.
5. A married woman cannot be denied
compassionate appointment, is one thing and she being
dependent upon the natal family despite marriage is
another. A married woman is entitled to apply for
compassionate appointment does not mean despite non-
compliance of other requirement of the Rule such as
dependency, financial dependency etc., she should be
given compassionate appointment. The impugned
judgment runs counter to this well established norm and
therefore, cannot be sustained.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11005-DB
In the above circumstances, this appeal succeeds
and the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge is
set at naught, costs having been made easy.
Sd/-
(KRISHNA S.DIXIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
JUDGE
VNP, CT:VP
