IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R.DEVDAS WRIT PETITION No.12815/2018 (S-RES) BETWEEN 1. LAKSHMI W/O LATE SURESH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT KILARI PETE BHOVI COLONY HOSKOTE TOWN-562114 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 2. BHANUPRATHAP S/O LATE SURESH AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT KILARI PETE BHOVI COLONY HOSKOTE TOWN-562114 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.C. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT M S BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT K.G. ROAD BANGALORE-560 009.
3. THE DIRECTOR, THE DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINSITRATION, VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWER, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.
4. THE COMMISSIONER, TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HOSKOTE TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL, DISTRICT-562114. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.S.PRATHIMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI P.N. NANJA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-4 TO RELEASE ALL THE TEMINAL BENEFITS OF THE DECEASED SURESH IN FAVOUR OF THE FIRST PETITIONER UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Petitioners have preferred this petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the fourth respondent- Commissioner of Town Municipal Counsel, Hoskote, to provide appointment on compassionate grounds.
2. It is contended by petitioners that husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2, namely Sri Suresh, entered the services of the Town Municipal Council, Hoskote as Pourakarmika w.e.f. 03.02.1992. Subsequently by order dated 30.07.1995 the petitioners husband was appointed under the relevant rules as pourakarmika, with pay scale attached to the said post. Said Suresh passed away on 05.04.2014 before his services were regularized.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners draws the attention of this Court to a circular dated 02.01.1997 issued by the respondent-State Government and further submits that as per the said circular, if an employee dies even before the services are regularised but has completed services of more than 10 years, the legal representative of the said employee shall be eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds.
4. Learned counsel relies upon a judgment of this Court in the case of R.Shivakumar /vs./ State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.57932/2017, which was disposed of on 20.06.2018. In that case, under similar circumstances, this Court while taking into consideration the circular dated 02.01.1997 quashed the endorsement issued and directed the respondents to consider the application made by the petitioner therein in the light of the circular dated 02.01.1997.
5. On the other hand, learned AGA submits that the case of the petitioner is different from the one in W.P.No.57932/2017 (supra). Learned AGA further submits that the appointment of the petitioner’s husband was not in accordance with law since the appointing authority as per the circular dated 10.02.1995 issued by the State Government, was the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District, while the appointment of the petitioner’s husband was made by the President of the Town Municipal Council.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out to the relevant provisions i.e., Rule 2(b) of the Karnataka Municipalities (Recruitment of Officers and Servants) Rules 1971, which provides that in the case of posts, the pay or the maximum of the scale of pay which does not exceed Rs.1310/- per month, the Municipal Council is the appointing authority. Moreover, it is contended that under similar circumstances, in another case pertaining to one Sri Nagaraju, who was also a daily wage employee at Doddaballapur City Municipal Council, the services of the deceased employee was notionally regularised and his wife Smt.V.Lakshmamma was appointed on compassionate grounds, by order dated 07.11.2012.
7. In the light of the above, though the learned AGA seeks to sustain the endorsement issued by the respondent No.4-Commissioner, in order to enable the respondents to take a decision. In view of the discussions made above, a direction is issued to the respondents to reconsider the application dated 31.03.2015 filed by the petitioner No.2, in accordance with law. To enable the same, the petitioners are granted liberty to file a representation enclosing a copy of the application and all supporting documents with respondent No.4, who shall take note of the same, keeping in view the observations contained in this order and thereafter take a fresh decision in accordance with law 8. The decision in any event shall be taken by the respondent No.4 as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three months from the date of which the representation is submitted by the petitioners.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.
sd/- JUDGE DS