Karnataka High Court
Jagadeesh S/O. Veerayya Karisiddimath vs The General Manager on 10 June, 2024
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7714
WP No. 70385 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO.70385/2012(S-RES)
BETWEEN:
JAGADEESH
S/O. VEERAYYA KARISIDDIMATH,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: BASAWESHWAR NAGAR,
NEAR VEERABHADRSWHAR TEMPLE,
GADAG, TQ AND DIST: GADAG.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.B.DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE GENERAL MANAGER,
PERSONAL DEPARTMENT, (HRD)
VIJAYA BANK, HEAD OFFICE,
M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by V N
BADIGER
Location: High THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
Court of
Karnataka CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION AND
QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT NO.PER:HRD:RCT:4986:2012 DATED
12.06.2012 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-G AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATION. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED
24.05.2012 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7714
WP No. 70385 of 2012
THE PETITIONER ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND TO MEET OUT THE
ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B
GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by
the endorsement dated 12.06.2012 as per Annexure-G
issued by the respondent-Bank and for issuance of writ of
mandamus to the respondent to consider the
representation dated 24.05.2012 as per Annexure-F for
appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground.
2. Case of the petitioner is that his father Sri.
Veerayya was working in the respondent-Bank as a peon
and he died on 29.03.2000 while he was in service. The
petitioner is the eldest son of late Veerayya. The said
Verayya had left behind his wife, petitioner and youngest
daughter and that there are no earning members in the
family of the petitioner. That the sudden death of their
father had caused financial hardship at the time of his
death. At the time of death of his father, petitioner was
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7714
pursuing his studies in PUC. As such, his mother had made
an application to the respondent on 11.09.2000 seeking
providing of any suitable appointment in the establishment
of the respondent-Bank. The respondent-Bank did not take
any action for a very long time on the representation
made by the petitioner's mother. As such, the mother of
the petitioner had made one more representation
requesting them to consider her representation in
accordance with law.
3. That in response to the said oral representation
on 09.06.2005 the respondent-Bank had issued an
endorsement stating that there is no scheme for providing
employment on the compassionate ground. As such, they
were unable to consider her request.
4. It is further contended that the respondent-
Bank had however forwarded a scheme providing for Ex
gratia relief in lieu of compassionate appointment. The
said offer was not acceptable to the petitioner as the
petitioner was in need of employment. That finally the
petitioner gave representation on 24.05.2012 to which
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7714
vague and untenable reply was issued by the respondent-
Bank stating that her request would not fall under the
scheme in force. Constraining the petitioner to approach
this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner apart from
reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of
petition placing reliance on the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court passed in Writ Appeal No.3824/2000
dated 12.08.2003, submits that in an identical facts and
circumstance of the matter, the Division Bench of this
Court had directed the Vijaya Bank, who was appellant in
that matter, to take the private respondent therein on
compassionate appointment in exercise of powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the petitioner in the instant case is also
similarly situated with that of the private respondent in the
said case. He further submits that the respondent-Bank
therefore cannot discriminate between the petitioner
herein and respondent therein. Hence, emphatically
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7714
submits that the respondent-Bank be directed to grant
compassionate appointment to the petitioner herein.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-Bank taking this Court through the records
submits that the request of the mother of the petitioner
for compassion appointment was rejected and the same
was communicated as early as on 09.06.2005 as per
Annexure-B.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank
further submits that thereafter considering the fact that
the father of the petitioner had rendered his services to
the growth of Bank by communication dated 21.09.2010,
the respondent-Bank had offered to pay Ex gratia relief in
lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds, which
offer was declined by the mother of the petitioner.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank
further submits that subsequently by another
communication dated 25.01.2011, the Bank had provided
yet another opportunity to the mother of the petitioner to
avail the Ex gratia relief and had also made clear that if
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7714
the said option was not available on or before the
15.02.2011, the said offer would not be available
thereafter.
10. Thus, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank
further submits that the request of the mother of the
petitioner could not be entertained for want of rules
providing for such appointment. The mother of the
petitioner did not avail the offer of payment of Ex gratia
amount.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank
submits that all these developments have taken place
during the years 2005 and 2011, and the Writ Petition is
filed in the year 2012 seeking the relief which have now
become stale and infructuous by passage of time. Hence,
seeks for dismissal of the petition.
12. Heard and perused the records.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits
that as on the date when the application was filed for
seeking appointment on compassionate ground, there was
neither any rule nor any scheme prevalent in the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7714
respondent-Bank providing for appointment on
compassionate ground.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner however,
heavily relies upon the judgment passed by the Division
Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.3824/2000 and
vehemently submits that in the said case, Bank itself had
recommended for appointment of compassionate ground
and taking note of the conduct of the Bank, the Division
Bench had directed the Bank to appoint the respondent
therein under compassionate ground in exercise of its
power under Article 226 of Constitution of India, and
similar benefit be extended to the petitioners.
15. This Court is not inclined to accept the said
submission. Necessary to note that in the case relied
upon by the petitioner is that the Bank itself had
recommended for appointment on compassionate ground
to the Central Government. The Central Government had
apparently declined to accept the recommendation made
by the Bank in view of inquiry that was initiated against
the deceased employee in the said proceedings.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7714
Subsequently, upon the petition filed by the legal
representative diseased employee in the said case, the
Court had directed the Bank to grant appointment on
compassionate grant. Upon the appeal filed by the Bank
against the said order, the Division Bench of this Court
taking note of the earlier recommendation made by the
Bank itself held that the Bank had no locus stand to
question the order as the Bank itself had recommended for
appointment on compassionate ground and it was under
those peculiar circumstances the Division Bench of this
Court had confirmed the order passed by a Single Judge.
16. Contrary to the above said facts and
circumstances in the instant case, an application that was
filed by the wife of deceased employee by name Nirmala
was rejected by the Bank and the same was
communicated to the said Nirmala by communication
dated 09.06.2005 and the said communication has
remained unchallenged till date.
17. Records reveal that the Bank on its own had
come forward and offered Ex gratia amount in the year
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7714
2010 i.e., five years after the rejection of request of the
petitioner's mother for appointment on compassionate
ground. Thereafter, by yet another communication in the
year 2011, the Bank again called upon the wife of
deceased employee to opt for Ex gratia on or before
15.02.2011, which has also declined by the wife of the
deceased employee.
18. It is only in the year 2012 the present petition
is filed by the son of the deceased who by the said time
had even attained the age of 27 years. The endorsement
has been issued stating that no scheme available. As per
the scheme which is now prevalent, which has come into
force on and after 2007 the consideration for
compassionate appointment can only be made on the
grounds namely, employee dying while performing his
official duty as a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or
dacoit and or employee dying within five years of his first
appointment or before reaching the age of 30 years,
whichever is later leaving a dependent spouse and a or
minor children.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7714
19. It is necessary to note that the very purpose of
granting compassionate appointment is to see that the
dependents/family members of the deceased are given
solacium in view of the financial hardship faced by them
on account of demise of the working member of the
family. In the instant case, though there was no scheme
for granting compassionate appointment, the Bank had
offered Ex gratia amount which was declined. Further, the
petitioners have managed for over twelve years as in the
date of filing of the petition and twenty five years as on
this date, negating the very purpose of the compassionate
appointment.
20. View from any angle the petitioners have not
made out any ground warranting interference.
21. Needless to state since the respondent-Bank
had voluntarily offered to pay the Ex gratia amount to the
wife of deceased employee, the petitioner may make an
representation seeking Ex gratia amount which may be
considered by the respondent-Bank if permissible.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7714
22. Accordingly, petition is disposed off.
SD/-
JUDGE
SMM/CT-ASC
