Karnataka High Court
The Gulbarga Electricity Supply ... vs Huligemma And Ors on 19 February, 2025
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1141-DB
WA No.200088 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT APPEAL NO.200088 OF 2021 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. THE GULBARGA ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
THE GULBARGA ELECTRICITY COMPANY LTD.,
MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI.
Digitally signed
by RAMESH
MATHAPATI 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
Location: HIGH
COURT OF GESCOM, GANGAVATI,
KARNATAKA
DIST: KOPPAL.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. HULIGEMMA
W/O BASAVARAJ J.
AGE ABOUT : 58 YEARS,
OCC: NIL.,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1141-DB
WA No.200088 of 2021
2. GAYATRI
D/O BASAVARAJ J.
AGE ABOUT : 38 YEARS,
OCC: NIL.,
3. VIDYASHREE
D/O BASAVARAJ J.
AGE ABOUT : 36 YEARS,
OCC: NIL.,
4. RAJU
S/O BASAVARAJ J.
AGE ABOUT : 31 YEARS,
OCC: NIL.,
ALL R/O: HRS COLONY GANGAVATHI,
DIST: KOPPAL - 583 231.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.VILASKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI NITESH PADIYAL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1 TO R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER DATED 06.01.2021
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
W.NO.204232/2014 (S-RES) AND TO PASS ANY SUCH
APPROPRIATE ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM
FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1141-DB
WA No.200088 of 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
The present appeal by the Gulbarga Electricity Supply
Company Ltd. (for short 'GESCOM') calls in question the
correctness of the order of the learned Single Judge
passed in W.P.No.204232/2014, whereby the Writ Petition
filed by the family members of late Basavaraj seeking for
quashing of the endorsement rejecting the prayer of
granting appointment on compassionate grounds came to
be challenged in the Writ Petition, which eventually was
allowed. The Writ Petition was allowed setting aside the
endorsement of the Corporation rejecting the claim to
consider appointment on compassionate grounds and
further direction was granted by the learned Single Judge
in the nature of writ of mandamus to the Corporation to
consider the application filed by the son of late Basavaraj.
2. Parties are referred to by their ranks in the writ
proceedings for the purpose of convenience.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1141-DB
3. The facts made out are that: Basavaraj S/o:
Nagappa was an employee of the respondent-GESCOM
who died on 02.01.2005 during his service. It is thereafter
submitted that in terms of Annexure-A, the wife of late
K.Basavaraj, the deceased employee had made out a
representation to the Corporation on 17.06.2005 to the
effect that her son is a minor who was not attained the
age of 18 years and permission was sought to file an
application after he attained the age of majority.
4. It is further submitted that, in terms of
Annexure-B Huligemma W/o: Basavaraj made another
representation on 27.11.2007, reiterating the contents of
Annexure-A.
5. It is also the case of the petitioner that in terms
of Annexure-C, application was made requesting for
appointment on compassionate grounds dated
15.08.2008/16.08.2008. It is this application which is in
dispute as the Corporation has contended that this
application was never made to it and did not bear any
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1141-DB
acknowledgement or endorsement to substantiate that it
was served on the Corporation.
6. It is the further case of the petitioner that an
endorsement came to be issued at Annexure-D, rejecting
the request made and referring to the application dated
26.10.2012 stated to have been made by the son of late
Basavaraj, petitioner No.4.
7. The Writ Petition came to be heard and after
detailed consideration, the Court has allowed the Writ
Petition while quashing the endorsement at Annexure-D
and directing that steps be taken to consider the
application filed by petitioner No.4 i.e., the son, in
accordance with law as applicable norms and qualifications
of petitioner No.4.
8. The endorsement, which was in challenge
before the learned Single Judge dated 16.05.2013 was to
the effect that the application ought to have been filed
within one year of date of death and same having been
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1141-DB
filed after lapse of 7 years 9 months and 24 days delay,
could not have been considered in terms of the Rules in
force. Reference to the application that was considered
was the application stated to have been made on
26.10.2012, by petitioner No.4.
9. A perusal of the order of the learned Single
Judge, would reveal that the learned Single Judge has
taken note of the Rule in force i.e., The Regulation 5 of
Application for appointment of Karnataka Electricity Board
Recruitment (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds)
Regulations, 1997. Regulation 5 that was in force as on
the date of the death prior to its amendment reads as
follows;
"5. Application for Appointment :-
Every dependent of a deceased Board
employee, seeking appointment under these
regulations shall make an application alongwith
all supporting records/documents WITHIN ONE
YEAR from the date of the Board Employee, in
such form, as may be notified by the Board from
time to time, to the Head of the office under
whom the deceased Board employee was
working.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1141-DB
Provided that in the case of a minor, application
shall be made within a period of ONE YEAR after
attaining majority."
(emphasis supplied)
10. In terms of the said rule, there was a
requirement under the proviso that where the applicant is
a minor, application should be made within a period of one
year after attaining majority.
11. The learned Single Judge has made
observations as regards the application filed within one
year after attaining the age of majority at paragraph
No.15, which reads as follows;
"15. The petitioner No.4 attained majority
and is stated to have been made an application
on 16.08.2008 in furtherance of the
representation made by the petitioner No.1 on
17.06.2005 to the respondents. Though,
application dated 16.08.2008 produced along
with the petition does not bear any endorsement
of having been received by the respondents.
The application is filed today under a memo,
which bears the endorsement of respondents to
be received on 17.08.2008. Thus, the contention
of Sri Nagraj Patil, learned counsel, that no
application was filed in the year 2008, cannot be
believed. There appears to be another
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1141-DB
application filed by the petitioner No.4 in the
year 2012 which was considered by the
respondents and rejected, what is to be
considered by this Court is to whether the
respondents could have replied to the application
made in the year 2008 in 2013 and whether the
said delay of 5 years could enure to the
corporation by relying upon Rule 5 of the
Regulations and amendment made thereto."
12. The observation made is to the effect that
petitioner No.4 had attained majority and flied an
application on 16.08.2008 and though the application
produced along with petition at Annexure-C did not bear
any endorsement, however memo was filed by petitioner
on the date of order being passed, which had document
reflecting the endorsement of respondent to have received
the application on 17.08.2008.
13. It must be seen that the respondent-
Corporation in the present appeal has canvassed the
primary contention that no application was made over to
the Corporation dated 16.08.2008 and Annexure-C to the
petition did not bear an acknowledgment. It is further
submitted that even otherwise despite the learned Single
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1141-DB
Judge having referred to a document producing an
acknowledgment having been produced, the memo filed
along with Writ Petition did not have any document with
an acknowledgment as regards Annexure-C. It is further
submitted that in the absence of any acknowledgement to
Annexure-C, the learned Single Judge could not have
taken note of any other document to hold that the
application was filed within one year of attaining majority.
14. It is further contended that the additional
documents produced along with the appeal include an
extract of the Register which would indicate that the
Register has been tampered with and an entry to the
effect that an application was delivered on 17.08.2008 and
as the said date was the Sunday and the respondent-
Corporation is a Public Authority, obviously, such entry
was a concocted one entered in the register in collusion
with the employees of the Corporation.
15. Further, the counsel for the Corporation would
submit that a Show-cause notice was issued in the name
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1141-DB
of the official to explain as to how such entry in the
Register has came to be made as perusal of the Register
would indicate that it was an inserted entry.
16. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners would submit that Annexure-C was in effect
submitted to the Corporation which application if taken
note of, would be an application filed within one year of
date of death of Basavaraj. It is submitted that the said
handing over of application within one year from the date
of attaining majority. It is submitted that evidence of
having submitted such application was in the Register
which the Corporation has produced in the appeal
proceedings.
17. It is further submitted that the family members
of Basavaraj including petitioner No.4 have no role in
maintenance of the Register nor have any access to the
Register, which bears an entry relating to the furnishing of
application at Annexure-C.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1141-DB
18. Heard both sides.
19. The facts which are not in dispute that
Basavaraj K., died on 02.01.2005. In terms of Regulation
5 of the Karnataka Electricity Board (supra), in case the
claimant is a minor, application must be filed within one
year of date of attaining majority. It is not in dispute by
both sides that the date of birth is 12.06.1990. If that
were to be so, application ought to have been filed by
12.06.2008.
20. The entirety of reasoning of the learned Single
Judge is found at paragraph No.15, wherein the learned
Single Judge has recorded an affirmative finding that the
application dated 16.08.2008 apparently referring to
Annexure-C was submitted on 17.08.2008 and if that were
to be so, application having been filed within one year of
attaining majority ought to have been taken note of.
21. A perusal of the Writ Petition records would
reveal that Annexure-C to the petition was the application
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1141-DB
dated 15.08.2008/16.08.2008 made in the name of
petitioner No.4. There is no acknowledgement to the said
application. Though the learned Single Judge in the
observation at paragraph No.15 has stated that memo was
produced including copy of endorsement. A perusal of the
memo, does not indicate Annexure-C with
acknowledgement, what has been produced along with
memo is only an RTI application. This could not take the
role of establishing that Annexure-C was received on
17.08.2008, as observed by the learned Single Judge.
What is curious is the submission of learned counsel for
the Corporation that 17.08.2008 was the Sunday. The
relevant Register was directed to be produced. The
learned counsel for the petitioners was also provided
access to the said Register.
22. A perusal of the Register extract of which is
produced along with the additional documents would
reveal that entry No.428 refers to the alleged
acknowledgement of the application made by petitioner
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1141-DB
No.4. There is no signature in the Register by any official
alongside such entry. Above the said entry in the Register
another entry has been made, which appears to be
pertaining to entry No.428, which has been struck off and
subsequently entry No.428 is again inserted. This insertion
is visible to the bear eye. Insofar as the contention that
the petitioners have no role insofar as such entry as the
Register is in the possession of the respondent-
Corporation, it could be stated that any insertion in the
Register would be for the benefit of the claimants and
accordingly if there is an insertion as is apparent in the
Register and the stand taken by the Corporation, it is only
for the benefit of the claimants.
23. It must be noticed that the contention of the
Corporation that no application was made in the year
2008, is further strengthened by the fact that the
endorsement at Annexure-D, which rejected the
application made by petitioner No.4 refers to application
made by petitioner No.4 dated 26.10.2012. The said
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1141-DB
representation stated to have been made by petitioner
No.4, is evidenced by extract of the Register produced
along with the additional documents which makes an entry
that petitioner No.4 had made an application on
26.10.2012. If the application dated 26.10.2012 is taken
note of, obviously it is beyond the period of one year of
attaining majority and has been made after a lapse of 4
years after attaining majority. If the only official
application as found in the Register was made by
petitioner No.4 on 26.10.2012, same could not have been
considered.
24. The finding of the learned Single Judge is only
on the basis of the say of the petitioner that application
was filed and duly acknowledged and endorsement was
made in the year 2008. However, there is no evidence of
an acknowledgement and even the Register produced by
the Corporation would prima facie indicate an insertion
was made and the feeble response of the petitioners is not
sufficient to dispel the apparent insertion in the Register.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1141-DB
Further, in order to clarify the additional document
evidencing petitioner No.4 to have made an application on
26.10.2012, Original Register was produced and entry
perused. This would further clarify that what was filed by
petitioner No.4 was an application only on 26.10.2012.
25. Even, if an application was made in the year
2008, there is no reason forthcoming as to the delay from
2008 to the second application in 2012. Such inaction
would also defeat the very objective of granting
appointment on compassionate grounds after undue delay,
which is a settled position of law.
26. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the
order of the learned Single Judge is set aside.
27. In light of the vehement submission of the
learned counsel for the Corporation that the Register has
been altered, the Corporation is reserved liberty to take
appropriate action both on the administrative side and
even before the appropriate police authorities.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1141-DB
28. The original Register is permitted to be returned
by the Registry after retaining a duly attested copy of the
relevant extract.
Sd/-
(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
MSR
