IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.5922 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
Smt.K.B.Hema, W/o.Late Shivamallu, Aged about 46 years, R/at D.No.2206/A, 1st Cross, Nehru Nagar, East Layout, Cheluvayya Park, Mandya – 571 401. ... Petitioner (By Sri Rama Bhat K., Advocate) AND:
The Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India Divisional Office, “Jeevan Prakash”, PB No.37, Bannimantapa, Mysore – 570 015. ...Respondent (By Sri Rajashekar K., Advocate) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the impugned order/communication dated 14.01.2016 issued by the respondent as per Annexure-A and direct the respondent to re-consider the representation of the petitioner dated 7.1.2016 as per Annexure-B for compassionate appointment and etc.
This writ petition, coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Issue rule.
2. Heard Sri K.Rama Bhat, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Sri K.Rajashekar, learned advocate appearing for the respondent.
3. Petitioner’s husband was working in LIC. He died on 19th February 2014. Petitioner filed an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds on 7th January 2016. The same has been rejected by communication dated 14th January 2016 (Annexure-A).
4. Sri K.Rama Bhat, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that Annexure-A issued by the LIC is bad in law.
5. Sri K.Rajashekar, learned advocate for LIC submitted that rejection is made as per Regulation 21(iii) of the LIC recruitment (of Class III and IV Staff) Instructions, 1993. Petitioner’s son is gainfully employed as Engineering Analyst in M/s.Infosys Limited. As per Regulations, if one member of the family is gainfully employed, the application of other members of the family cannot be considered for compassionate appointment.
6. There is no challenge to the said Regulation. LIC is a State Owned Organization. Admittedly, petitioner’s son is gainfully employed in M/s.Infosys Limited. In the circumstances, no exception can be taken to the communication dated 14th January 2016 (Annexure-A). Resultantly, petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Cm/-