Karnataka High Court
Smt. Latha H.R vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30251-DB
WP No. 20216 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
WRIT PETITION NO. 20216 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SMT. LATHA H.R.,
W/O BORAIAH K N
D/O LATE RANGASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT NO.98, SHRUGARASAGAR VILLAGE,
HALEVOOR ROAD, NEAR KEMPEGOWDA SCHOOL,
KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR - 572123
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SATISH K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
by NANDINI D DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Location: High REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
Court of
Karnataka VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560001
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
COMMUINICATIONS AND BUILDING (SOUTH)
K R CIRCLE, BANGALORE 560001
3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
KUNIGAL SUB DIVISION,
KUNIGAL, TUMKUR 572130
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA FOR RESPONDENTS.)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30251-DB
WP No. 20216 of 2024
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.07.2024 PASSED BY
THE HON'BLE KSAT TRIBUNAL BANGALORE PASSED IN A.No-
4897/2023 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE
SAID A.No-4897/2023 AS SOUGHT FOR BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL (ANNEXURE-B) ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
1. This writ petition is filed assailing the order dated 11th
July, 2024 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative
Tribunal, Bangalore in Application No.4897 of 2023 (for short
brevity hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal").
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
the learned Additional Government Advocate for the
respondents.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner is the daughter of one
Rangaswamy, who passed away on 27th February, 2019, while
NC: 2024:KHC:30251-DB
working as Gangman in the office of the Assistant Executive
Engineer, Public Works Department, Sub-Division, Kunigal. It
is submitted that though an application was made for
compassionate appointment in respect of the petitioner, it came
to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner is a married
daughter and that Annexure-A9, which is an amendment made
to the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate
Grounds) (Amendment) Rules, 1996 (for brevity, hereinafter
referred to as "Rules"), had only prospective effect. It is
submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the
provisions of unamended Rules that compassionate
appointment would not be offered to a married daughter, had
held to be unconstitutional by a learned Single Judge of this
Court in the case of SMT. BHUVANESHWARI V. PURANIK v
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2021 KAR
5256. It is submitted that the said decision had been
confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court and the
proposition has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as
well. It is therefore, contended that the rejection of the
application made by the petitioner was per-se illegal and the
Tribunal erred in dismissing the application before it. Reliance
NC: 2024:KHC:30251-DB
is also placed on the decisions of this Court in similar matters
as are available at Annexure-A13 to A19.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate, on the
other hand, contends that though the Court had found that the
provisions contained in the unamended Rules was
unconstitutional, the State had, on 09th April, 2021, effected an
amendment to the Rules, which took away the offending
provision. However, the case of the respondent before the
Tribunal was that the said amendment dated 09th April, 2021
had only prospective effect and therefore, it could not be
applied to cases where the death of the Government Servant
took place before 09th April, 2021. Learned counsel for the
petitioner would contend that this specific issue had been
considered by this Court in a common judgment in Writ Petition
No.3340 of 2020 and 1002 of 2021 filed by the State where the
question with regard to the retrospective effect of the
amendment was considered and it was found that since the
amendment is effected by substitution, it would be
retrospective, i.e. with effect from the date of original Rules
itself.
NC: 2024:KHC:30251-DB
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate, contends
that the question with regard to eligibility of the writ petitioner
for appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with
provisions of Rules, will now have to be specifically considered.
6. Having considered the contentions advanced by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the opinion
that the finding of the Tribunal that the amendment had only
prospective effect and therefore the application cannot be
considered, cannot be accepted. The petitioner's application
has been rejected only on the ground that she is a married
daughter of the deceased government servant. It is not
disputed that the provisions of the unamended Rules to the
effect only an unmarried daughter could make an application
stood struck down as unconstitutional and the said judgment
has become final. Thereafter, the Rules have also been
amended substituting the words "unmarried daughter" with the
word "daughter".
7. In the above view of the matter and in view of the fact
of amendment made to the Rules by substitution, we are of the
opinion that the rejection of the application for appointment
NC: 2024:KHC:30251-DB
made by the petitioner on the sole ground that she is a married
daughter cannot be accepted.
8. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Order dated 11th
July, 2024 passed in Application No.4897 of 2023 by the
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, shall stand set aside.
The endorsement dated 27th June, 2022 impugned before the
Tribunal shall also stand set aside. The competent Authority-
Respondent shall consider the application of the petitioner in
accordance with Rules in force and without raising the objection
that she is a married daughter. All other issues are left open to
be decided by the respondent in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
LNN
