Karnataka High Court
Iranna S/O Late Rangappa Jangawad vs The Managing Director on 5 March, 2025
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4244-DB
WA No. 100695 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO.100695 OF 2023 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
IRANNA,
S/O LATE RANGAPPA JANGAWAD,
AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
R/O. NEERALAKERI VILLAGE,
TQ. DIST. BAGALKOTE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. LINGRAJ MARADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
HESCOM CORPORATE OFFICE,
NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD.
ASHPAK 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELE),
KASHIMSA
MALAGALADINNI O & M CIRCLE, HESCOM,
Digitally signed by
ASHPAK KASHIMSA
K.K. COLONY, MEGA BUILDING,
MALAGALADINNI
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
VIJAYAPUR.
DHARWAD BENCH
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE),
O & M DIVISION, HESCOM,
BAGALKOTE.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
02-08-2023 PASSED IN W.P.NO.106844/2019 (S-RES) BY THE
SINGLE JUDGE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4244-DB
WA No. 100695 of 2023
THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT)
This intra-court appeal under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, is filed by the petitioner
questioning the correctness and validity of the order dated
02.08.2023 passed in W.P. No.106844/2019, whereunder
the petitioner's prayer for quashing the rejection of request
for compassionate appointment and consequential direction
to provide him compassionate appointment has been
rejected.
2. Heard Sri. Lingaraj Maradi, the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant and perused the entire writ
appea papers.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit
that the learned Single Judge committed a grave error in
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4244-DB
dismissing the writ petition without appreciating the fact that
the petitioner, who is the son of the deceased employee of
the respondents-Hubli Electricity Supply Company Limited
(HESCOM) would be entitled for compassionate appointment
under the scheme prevailing in the respondent-HESCOM. He
submits that there was a civil suit pending between the first
wife and the second wife and children of the deceased
employee, which ended in a compromise. Thereafter the
petitioner approached the authorities seeking compassionate
appointment which is rejected. Further, learned counsel
would submit that, in terms of the scheme, the
appellant/petitioner would be entitled for compassionate
appointment.
4. We have gone through the impugned order
passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the writ appeal
papers.
5. The petitioner's father, who was an employee of
the HESCOM, died on 25.02.2001 while in service. The
mother of the petitioner submitted an application on
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4244-DB
04.12.2001 seeking compassionate appointment for her son
i.e., the petitioner. The said application was rejected by
endorsement dated 20.12.2002. Thereafter, the petitioner
submitted a representation on 26.09.2018, and approached
this Court in the year 2019. There is an inordinate delay in
approaching this Court. The purpose and object of providing
companionate appointment is to see that family of the
deceased servant gets over immediate financial distress due
to the sudden death of the bread winner. But, in the instant
case, the need to provide compassionate appointment to the
petitioner would not remain for so long since the petitioner
and the family of the deceased has been able to survive all
these years without the support of the bread earner. The
learned Single Judge at paragraph 7 of the impugned
order has observed that, if the family could survive for 22
long years without the support of the bread winner of the
family, the need for compassionate appointment has
therefore vanished. The learned Single Judge rightly placing
reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
State of J & K and Others Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, reported in
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4244-DB
(2006)5 SCC 766 has dismissed the writ petition which does
not call for any interference. There is no merit in the appeal,
and it is also seen that there is delay of 87 days in filing
appeal.
6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed both on
merits and on the ground of delay.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending I.As., if any,
are disposed of as not surviving for consideration.
Sd/-
(S G PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
KMS, CT:VP
