IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.34511/2018(S-KAT) BETWEEN SMT K VIJAYA D/O LATE KAVERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT RAMASANDRA VILLAGE, BODAGURKI POST, BANGARAPETE TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 129 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI G.J.SUKAPUR, FOR SRI M.R.HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATES) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES VIDHANA SOUDHA DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES ANAND RAO CIRCLE BANGALORE-560 009 3. THE OFFICER OF DISTRICT HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES, KOLARA TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN-563 129 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VENKATA SATYANARAYAN, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.04.2018 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.4400/2016 BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AT ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, SATYANARAYANA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner herein is impugning the order dated 19.04.2018 passed in Application No.4400/2016 on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short).
2. The case of the petitioner herein is that she is the daughter of one Kaverappa, who died while in service on 18.02.2011 leaving him surviving by his widow, daughter and son, who is said to be physically handicapped. The material on record would indicate that after the death of Kaverappa, his wife filed an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground on 30.01.2012, supported by certain documents to show her educational qualification. However, since the documents which were furnished by her seeking appointment proved to be false, her application came to be rejected on 08.01.2013.
3. It is thereafter, the petitioner herein filed another application seeking appointment on compassionate ground on 03.09.2014. The said application was rejected by the 3rd respondent vide Endorsement dated 22.01.2016, which was the subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal in Application No.4400/2016. The said application was dismissed by order dated 19.04.2018, which is subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. The order impugned would clearly explain the reasons for rejection of the application filed by the petitioner herein in para-3, which reads as under:
“3. The applicant’s father was a government servant and died on 18.02.2011. Soon after his death, his wife i.e., mother of the applicant applied for compassionate appointment on 30.1.2012 to 3rd respondent. Her application came to be rejected on 8.1.2013 on account of discrepancies in relation to the educational qualification. Thereafter applicant sought appointment on 3.9.2014. The said application has been rejected vide impugned endorsement dated 22.1.2016. While several contentions are raised on behalf of the applicant, it is not in dispute that application has been filed on 3.9.2014, admittedly, after a gap of more than 3½ years after death of the government servant. As per Rule 5 of KCS(CGA) Rules, the time limit for seeking compassionate appointment is one year from the date of death of the government servant but application has been filed well after that period. Moreover, rules envisage that only one person of the deceased government servant’s family can apply for compassionate appointment. In this case mother of the applicant (wife of the deceased employee) had sought appointment initially but it was not found to be in order. The rules do not provide for second application by another member of deceased government servant’s family. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere in the matter or to issue any directions as sought.”
4. On going through the aforesaid portion of the order, it is clearly seen that the reason given by the Tribunal in rejecting application of the petitioner herein is just and proper both on facts and in law. Therefore, interference to the same is not called for. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE TL