IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL No.4049 OF 2017 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
MUBEEN SHARIEFF SON OF LATE ABDUL SATTAR SHARIFF AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS NO.1215/10, 4TH WEST CROSS L.N. COLONY, YESHWANTHAPURA BENGALURU-560022.
NOW PRESENTLY RESIDING IN THE ABOVE ADDRESS (BY SRI. H M MURALIDHAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER (BY SRI. K KRISHNA, ADVOCATE) ... APPELLANT ... RESPONDENT THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.919/2011 DATED 03/04/2017.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 03.04.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.919 of 2011 by which the petition was dismissed, the writ petitioner is in appeal.
2. The petitioner filed writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus to the respondent to consider his application for appointment on compassionate grounds and issue appointment order in accordance with Rule 6 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, (for short ‘the Rules’). The petitioner claims that he is son of one late Abdul Sattar Shariff, who was working as ‘Head Coolie’ with the respondent – Bangalore Development Authority. It is stated that the father of the petitioner Abdul Sattar Shariff died while in service on 19.01.1998 living behind his wife and four children. The petitioner claims that he is the eldest son. The mother of the petitioner made an application on 09.02.1998 requesting to provide employment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds. Petitioner was asked to submit proper application, which he submitted on 12.10.1999. It is stated that the respondent by letter 16.01.2003 asked the petitioner to produce certain documents, which the petitioner produced before the respondent – authority. The petitioner was called for Computer Training Programme which he attended. He states that even after several reminders the respondents have failed to pass any order. It is stated that the petitioner is the sole bread winner of the family and has to take care of the family members. He states that the respondent has been making appointment on compassionate grounds disregarding the seniority and submits that many persons have been appointed on compassionate grounds. As the respondents failed to issue any order, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. The respondent filed its statement of objections contending that the father of the petitioner was working as a ‘Head Coolie’ in work charged establishment against a supernumery post and not against any permanent post. It is stated that there is no provision for appointment on compassionate grounds against supernumery post. The learned Single Judge considering the rival contentions dismissed the writ petition holding in sum and substance that the petitioner and his family were able to sustain for about 19 years and as such there is no justification to issue any mandamus for consideration of the claim of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is in appeal.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent - authority. Perused the appeal papers.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge committed a grave error in dismissing the writ petition. It is contended that delay on the part of the respondent cannot be held against the petitioner to deny the relief. The petitioner – appellant immediately within one month of the death of the father applied for compassionate appointment and it is the respondent, which slept over the application of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no delay on the part of the petitioner in seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent – authority supports the order of the learned Single Judge and submits that the compassionate appointment is to see that the family of the deceased government servant would not suffer from hardship and distress due to the sudden demise of the earning member. In the case on hand, the situation is entirely different and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
6. The learned Single Judge has passed a well reasoned order relying upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of compassionate appointment. On going through the same we are of the view, that the order of the learned Single Judge is neither perverse nor erroneous. We have to examine the case of the petitioner keeping in mind that the appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be sought as a matter of right and it has its own limitations. As stated earlier the compassionate appointment is provided to relieve immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden death of earning member of the family. In the case on hand, the father of the petitioner died on 19.01.1998. The petitioner claims to have made the application in the prescribed format on 12.10.1999. The petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition only in the year 2011. The petitioner and his family were able to survive for more than 12 years as on the date of filing writ petition. If they were able to survive for so long, the question of compassion would no longer exists. The Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of decisions has made it clear that if the family of the deceased government servant had coped without the compassionate appointment for a long period without any difficulty, the need for compassionate appointment would not arise for consideration. The object of appointment on compassionate grounds is to see that the family of the deceased gets over the financial crisis immediately. In the case on hand, at this length of time i.e., after nearly 20 years, no purpose would be served in directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. No ground is made out to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE NG*/CT:bms