IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 :PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.62368 OF 2016 (S-CAT) BETWEEN 1. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED (A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE) 15TH FLOOR, TELEPHONE HOUSE V. S. MARG, MUMBAI – 400028.
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED MUMBAI O/O DEPUTY MANAGER (FINANCE ) T- I FTN -1, TELECOM BUILDING - 518, 5TH FLOOR, M. G. ROAD FOR MUMBAI – 400001.
3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (A) LC M. T. N. L. MUMBAI MUMBAI – 400001.
4. THE ASSISTANT MANAGER (L) LC M. T. N. L. MUMBAI MUMBAI TELEPHONE BUILDING C. R. MARG, MUMBAI – 400001.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VISHNU BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND SMT. SAROJINI W/O LATE DHARMARAJA SIRNAIK AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS OCC: NIL R/AT LAXMI GALLI, H. NO. 206-D, KANAKADA NAGAR, POST VADGON, BELGAVI – 590005.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI UDANESHWARA M. G., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD:26.04.2016 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE IN O.A.NO.913/2015 AS PER ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, NARAYANA SWAMY J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The respondent/claimant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in Original Application No.170/00913/2015 seeking direction to the petitioner-Mahanagara Telephone Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’) to give her appointment on compassionate grounds. The said application came to be allowed on 26.04.2016 and direction was issued to the petitioner Board to consider case of the claimant and make an appropriate decision within the next three months.
2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 26.04.2016 passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner Board has filed the present writ petition on the ground that the decision taken by the Board in the year 2004, in the 192nd Meeting of Board of Directors of the Mahanagara Telephone Nigam Limited, at item No.17, wherein it was decided to impose ban on all types of recruitments except in the key areas, which required to be filled professionally qualified personnel. In view of the said decision, though it was placed before the Tribunal, the same has not been considered and therefore, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and it is also placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Local Administration Department and Another Vs. M.Selvanayagam Alias Kumaravelu, reported in (2011) 13 SCC 42, and Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and Others, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138, wherein it has been held that the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and it can only be considered in terms of Rules. It is also submitted that under the similar circumstances, Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, in O.A.No.02 of 2012, in the case of Shri. Promod K. Bhandare Vs. The General Manager (Admin), has considered the submission of ban on all types of recruitments, as referred to supra. Hence, it is made a sufficient tool to consider the case of the petitioner Board and to quash and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order passed by the Tribunal and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Board and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials on record.
5. The facts are not in dispute that the husband of the claimant/respondent, died on 09.03.2000, at an early age, while he was in service. The petitioner made a claim in the year 2002, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. In view of the dispute regarding petitioner being legal representative, she made an application to obtain succession certificate to get benefits, in the year 2006. But, in the year 2004, the petitioner Board passed an order to impose ban on all types of recruitments. In view of the same, it is submitted that the Tribunal has allowed the application filed by the claimant/respondent directing the petitioner Board to provide job on compassionate grounds. It is true that when it is a case for appointment on compassionate grounds, it is for the petitioner-Board to consider the representation of the respondent including her dejected condition.
6. In the instant case, the husband of the claimant/respondent died in the year 2000, while she was in young age and she has made an application in the year 2002. Though the decision was taken in the year 2004 by the Board to impose ban on all types of recruitments including compassionate grounds, it cannot be with retrospective effect. When the respondent had made an application in the year 2002, there was no such ban or decision taken by the Board. The decision of ban on all types of recruitments was taken in the year 2004. In no way, it will be taken advantage by the other parties, if the claim petition of the respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds was considered. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the ground taken by the Board that the order of the Tribunal is to be set aside in view of the decision of the year 2004, for ban of all appointments cannot be accepted, since the said order came into force from the year 2004. The claim petition of the claimant/respondent has not been considered by the petitioner Board, since from the year 2002, and from the relevant point time no decision was taken as she was in dejected position, as her husband was died at her younger age. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the Tribunal in allowing the application is sound and proper. At this stage this, Court is of the opinion that the respondent has made out sufficient ground for appointment on compassionate grounds which cannot be denied by referring the decision of 2004. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal providing a job to a claimant/respondent on compassionate grounds is lawful and sustainable.
7. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. It is directed that the petitioner Board shall provide an appointment to the claimant/respondent on compassionate ground, at any rate within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
It is made clear that the order of this Court cannot be treated as precedent in any other case.
SD/- JUDGE SD/- JUDGE DL