Karnataka High Court

Girijavva W/O Babu Dodamani vs The Town Municiple Council on 7 March, 2024

Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar

Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar

                                                            -1-
                                                                     NC: 2024:KHC-D:4947
                                                                       WP No. 66646 of 2012




                                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                                   DHARWAD BENCH
                                        DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
                                                         BEFORE
                                 THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
                                       WRIT PETITION NO. 66646 OF 2012 (S-RES)
                            BETWEEN:
                            GIRIJAVVA W/O BABU DODAMANI,
                            AGED: ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
                            R/O. JANATA PLOTS, SAVANUR ROAD,
                            SHIGGOAN, DIST: HAVERI.
                                                                                 ... PETITIONER
                            (BY SRI. ANANT P. SAVADI, ADVOCATE)

                            AND:
                            1.   THE TOWN MUNICIPLE COUNCIL,
                                 SHIGGOAN, R/BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER,
                                 SHIGGAON.

                            2.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
                                 HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI.

                            3.   THE COMMISSIONER,
                                 DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL
                                 ADMINISTRATION,
                                 GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
                                 9TH FLOOR, VISHWESHWARAYYA
                                 TOWER, BANGALORE-560001.

VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI                  4.   SMT. RATNAVVA BABU DODDAMANI,
                                 AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI
Location: HIGH COURT OF
                                 OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
KARNATAKA DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2024.03.13 16:21:22
                                 R/O. KOLUR VILLAGE,
+0530
                                 TQ. SHIGGAV, DIST. HAVERI.
                                                                                 ... RESPONDENTS
                            (BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
                             SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R2 & R3; R4-SERVED)

                                  THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
                            THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE ORDER IN THE NATURE
                            OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH ANNEXURE-D AND ANNEXURE-E DATED
                            22/12/2011 AND 29/12/2011 ISSUED BY COMMISSIONER, MUNCIPAL ADM.
                            AND ETC.

                                  THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY,
                            THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                               -2-
                                         NC: 2024:KHC-D:4947
                                           WP No. 66646 of 2012




                           ORDER

The prayer made in this petition is to quash the

endorsement dated 22.12.2011 issued by respondent No.3

vide Annexure-'D' and communication dated 29.12.2011

made by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 vide

Annexure-'E'.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel

for respondent No.1 and learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

3. The petitioner Girijavva is stated to be legally wedded

wife of Babu Gangappa Dodamani who was working as Poura

Karmika at Municipal Counsel, Shiggaon. The said Babu

Gangappa Dodamani died on 31.01.2008 while in service.

The said Babu Gangappa Dodamani left behind two wives

namely Smt.Ratnavva Babu Dodamani (Respondent No.4)

and Smt.Girijavva (petitioner) and two sons. The petitioner

and respondent No.4 filed civil suits in OS No.226/2008, OS

No.86/2008 and OS No.182/2008. The said suits came to be

clubbed and compromise came to be recorded before lok

NC: 2024:KHC-D:4947

adalath and decree has been passed on 08.10.2010

(Annexure-'A').

4. The petitioner Smt.Girijavva as per terms of the said

compromise decree applied for appointment on

compassionate ground. The respondent No.1 addressed

letter to the respondent No.2 and forwarded the relevant

papers by his letter dated 05.03.2011 for consideration of

appointment of petitioner on compassionate ground. The

petitioner furnished certificated copy of compromise decree

recorded in OS No.86/2008 under letter dated 18.10.2003

vide Annexure-'B'. Respondent No.2 sent a communication

dated 03.06.2011 to respondent No.3 recommending

appointment of petitioner on compassionate ground vide

Annexure-'C'. The respondent No.3 by endorsement dated

22.12.2011 vide Annexure-'D' informed the petitioner that

there is no provision to consider the case of the petitioner for

appointment on compassionate ground on the count that the

petitioner being the second wife of late Babu Gangappa

Dodamani, respondent No.3 sent back the relevant papers

under letter dated 28.12.2011 addressed to the respondent

NC: 2024:KHC-D:4947

No.2 vide Annexure-'E'. The petitioner has sought for

quashing of Annexure-'D' and Annexure-'E'. Petitioner has

also sought direction to respondent No.3 to consider the case

of petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that

the Division Bench of this court in MFA No.1260/1994 has

recorded the compromise in an appeal filed challenging the

judgment and decree passed in OS No.97/1989 by Principal

Judge, Family Court, Bangalore and in the said compromise

the service benefits and compassionate appointment were

shared between the first and second wives. He contends that

the appointment authority who was respondent No.3 in the

said case has preferred Civil Appeal No.5320/2003 before

Hon'ble Apex Court and the same came to be dismissed. He

contends that the said dismissal of appeal amounts to

confirming the order passed by Division Bench of this court.

6. Learned HCGP would contend that petitioner is the

second wife and as per rules, she is not entitled for

compassionate appointment and considering the same,

NC: 2024:KHC-D:4947

respondent No.3 has rightly rejected her claim seeking

compassionate appointment.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 also reiterated

the contention taken up by the learned HCGP.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I

have perused the records.

9. Petitioner Smt. Girijavva and her two minor children

filed a suit in OS No.182/2008. Respondent No.4 Ratnavva

had filed two suits namely OS No.86/2008 and OS

No.266/2008 against petitioner and her minor son and

Manager, LIC. The said compromise is recorded before the

lok adalath. The terms agreed between the parties are that

the petitioner is entitled to apply for appointment on

compassionate ground and for that she has to give a sum of

Rs.3,50,000-00 and respondent No.4 Ratnavva is entitled for

death benefits and pension. The said compromise terms are

accepted and decree has been passed in the said suits.

NC: 2024:KHC-D:4947

10. Petitioner based on the terms of the compromise

decree in OS No.86/2008 and connected matters vide

Annexure-'A' made an application before the respondent

Nos.1 and 2 who recommended the same to respondent

No.3. Respondent No.3 by his endorsement dated

22.12.2011 vide Annexure-'D' has issued endorsement that

the petitioner being second wife of the deceased Babu

Gangappa Dodamani is not entitled for compassionate

appointment under the rules and sent the records to

respondent No.2 by communication dated 29.12.2011 vide

Annexure-'E'. The said endorsement and communication vide

Annexure-'D' and Annexure-'E' respectively are questioned in

this petition.

11. A similar matter came before the Co-ordinate Bench of

this court for consideration in the case of Smt.T.H.Ashalaha

Vs. The Commissioner, Directorate of Municipal

Administration and others reported in ILR 2018 KAR

332, wherein, in paragraph Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 it is

held as under:

NC: 2024:KHC-D:4947

8. On the basis of the compromise decree, the petitioner has sought for appointment on compassionate basis claiming to be the widow of late Thippeswamy as per the Rule 3 of the Rules. The relevant portion of Rule 3 reads as under:

"3. Eligibility for appointment - (1) Appointment on compassionate grounds under these rules shall not be claimed as a matter of right and shall not be given as a matter of course.

(2) Appointment under these rules shall be restricted to the dependent of a deceased Government servant in the following order of preference, namely-

(i) in the case of the deceased male Government servant:-

(a) the widow;

(b) a son, if widow is not eligible or for any valid reason she is not willing to accept the appointment;

(c) an unmarried daughter, if the widow and son are not eligible or for any valid reason they are not willing to accept the appointment;

(d) a widowed daughter, if the widow, son and unmarried daughter are not eligible or

NC: 2024:KHC-D:4947

for any valid reason they are not willing to accept the appointment"

A reading of the aforesaid extract makes it clear that the appointment on compassionate grounds under the Rules cannot be claimed as a matter of right and shall not be given as matter of course. The appointment under the Rule shall be restricted to the dependent of the deceased Government servant in the above mentioned order of preference. The first preference is given to widow.

The expression "widow" dependent on the deceased Government servant is defined in Rule 2(1)(a) as under:

"(a) "Dependent of the deceased Government servant" means:-

    (i)    in     the     case      of      deceased        male
  Government             servant,          his    widow,    son,

unmarried daughter and widowed daughter who were dependent upon him and were living with him; and

(ii) in the case of a deceased female Government servant, her widower, son [unmarried daughter and widowed daughter] who were dependent upon her and were living with her."

NC: 2024:KHC-D:4947

9. On a conspectus reading of the above, it becomes clear that the widow of the deceased male Government servant is entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate basis. Any lady, who was married to the male Government servant who dies, is his widow. The Rule does not refer to a widow who was the legally wedded wife of the deceased Government servant. Therefore, when the expression 'widow' is not qualified by the addition of words "legally wedded wife/spouse of the deceased male Government servant", such additional qualification to the expression 'widow' cannot be added. All that needs to be established is that the person seeking appointment on compassionate basis was a dependent of the deceased male Government servant, who died in harness and must be his widow. Therefore, the first respondent could not have rejected her application on the premise that she is the "second wife" of late Thippeswamy, when in fact it is established that she is his widow.

10. While holding so, reliance could be placed on guiding principles of interpretation of statute. One such principle is that the Court is not entitled to read words into a provision of an Act or Rule for the meaning is to be found within the four

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:4947

corners of the provision of the Act or Rules, as in the instant case. Therefore, while it is not permissible to add words or to fill in a gap or lacuna, on the other hand effort should be made to give meaning to each and every word used by the legislature. Thus, when the rules under consideration uses the expression "widow", the same must be interpreted so as to give effect to the intention of the legislature and by not qualifying the expression "widow" by addition of words to mean, "legally wedded spouse of the deceased male Government servant". Thus, the golden rule of construction is that the words of a statute or the Rule in question, in the instant case must be first understood in the natural, ordinary or popular sense. Phrases and sentences must be construed according to their grammatical meaning, unless that leads to some absurdity or unless there is something in the context, or in the object of the statute to suggest the contrary. In other words, the golden rule is that the words of a statute prima facie be given an ordinary meaning. Natural and ordinary meaning of words should not be departed from "unless it can be shown that the legal context in which the words are used requires a different meaning". Such a meaning cannot be departed from by the judges "in light of their own views as to policy" unless it is shown to adopt a purposive interpretation of the

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:4947

statute. However, if the words used in the statute would result in injustice, absurdity, contradiction or stultification of statutory objective, the language may be modified sufficiently to avoid such disadvantage and no further.

11. In light of the above, it is observed that the expression "widow" in Rule 3 must be understood in its natural, ordinary or popular sense and not by qualification of the said expression to the effect that the widow must have been a legally wedded wife of the deceased male Government servant which would in fact be detrimental to the object and purpose of the Rules under consideration. By using the expression "widow", the rule making authority has deliberately not qualified the same because the intention is that if a deceased male Government servant has left behind two widows, either of them could claim for appointment on compassionate ground and not necessarily restricted to a widow who was the legally married wife of the deceased male servant. Further, while interpreting the expression "the widow" under the Rules, her status vis- à-vis the deceased male Government servant as to whether she was the legally wedded wife or not is extraneous and totally foreign, having regard to the object and purpose of the Rules under consideration. The Rules are meant for giving

- 12 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:4947

immediate succor to the dependents of the deceased male Government servant and hence, an enquiry as to whether the widow who has made a claim for appointment on compassionate ground was the legally wedded wife of the deceased male Government servant would be extraneous and irrelevant.

12. Therefore, while examining the case of petitioner herein, respondent/authority cannot hold an enquiry as to whether the deceased Government servant had obtained permission before marrying the petitioner herein in terms of Rule 28 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. Further, in the instant case, there is no finding by any Court or authority that the petitioner herein was not the legally wedded wife of the deceased Thippeswamy. Moreover, petitioner and the fourth respondent have entered into a compromise in O.S.No.313/2010, wherein the fourth respondent/defendant No.1 herein has stated that she had no objection to the claim made by the petitioner herein for employment on compassionate ground.

13. Further, in the case of SMT. G. PARVATHI VS. THE CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR under similar circumstances, this Court directed that the dispute between the

- 13 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:4947

two widows of the deceased Government servant could be resolved in terms of the settlement arrived at between them. Also, in the case of SMT.LAKSHMI AND ANOTHER VS. SMT.

      S.A.ANUSUYA AND OTHERS a                                  Division
      Bench     of    this     Court        had directed that the

dispute between the parties could be resolved in terms of the compromise arrived at between them. The said order has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5320/2003 disposed of on 18/11/2009.

The facts of the present case on hand and the facts of

the above mentioned case are similar.

12. The petitioner and respondent No.4 have entered into

compromise in OS No.86/2008 and connected matters

wherein there is a compromise between petitioner and

Sm.Ratnavva-respondent No.4 and she had no objection to

the claim made by the petitioner herein for employment on

compassionate ground. Therefore, the impugned

endorsement dated 22.12.2011 (Annexure-'D') and

communication dated 29.12.2011 (Annexure-'E') are

quashed. The matter is remanded to respondent No.3 to

- 14 -