IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. L.NARAYANA SWAMY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.6935 OF 2017 (S-RES) & WRIT APPEAL NO.958 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
1. N. B. RANGANATHA SON OF LATE BASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHRISTAIN STREET, FIRST CROSS, MANDIPET ROAD, PANDURANGA NAGARA, TUMKUR-572 101.
2. SMT. N. RADHAMMA WIFE OF LATE BASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHRISTAIN STREET, FIRST CROSS, MANDIPET ROAD, PANDURANGA NAGARA, TUMKUR-572 101 ... APPELLANTS (BY SHRI SUBRAMANYA BHAT M., ADVOCATE) AND :
1. REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-01.
2. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, TUMAKURU-572 101.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI S. S. MAHENDRA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THESE WRIT APPEALS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT WRIT APPEALS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2017 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NOS.16544– 545 OF 2017 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND GRANT ALL THE RELIEFS SOUGHT FOR BY THE APPELLANTS.
THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT These writ appeals are filed against order dated 25.10.2017 passed in Writ Petitions No.16544-16545 of 2017 wherein petitioners / appellants have challenged communication dated 27.01.2017 passed by first respondent rejecting petitioners’ request for appointment on compassionate grounds.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to as per their status in the writ petition.
3. The facts of the case are first petitioner’s father Mr. Basavaiah died on 30.03.2014, while he was in service. After his death, first petitioner filed an application on 02.08.2014 seeking compassionate appointment. The said application was rejected by respondent No.1 vide communication dated 01.10.2015 and the same was informed to first petitioner on 08.10.2015.
The communication rejecting the application did not contain any reasons. Hence, on 23.11.2015, first petitioner filed an application under the RTI Act to discover the reasons for rejection of said application. The State Public Information Officer of this Court vide letter dated 08.12.2015 has informed that since wife of deceased is a teacher and also getting family pension, it cannot be said that the family is left without any means of livelihood. Under these circumstances, it is stated that first petitioner does not get any statutory right to be appointed on compassionate grounds.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that Rule 4(1) of the Karnataka Civil Service (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 (for brevity, ‘Rules’) clarifies that monthly income of the family of deceased Government servant from all sources shall not be less than total emoluments including Dearness Allowance. For the purpose of calculation of monthly income, income from family pension, lumpsum pensionary benefits and interest earned thereon shall be excluded. Hence, this appeal before this Court.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.2 submits that application filed by first petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that wife of deceased is getting family pension and therefore, the family was not facing financial crisis as on the date of consideration of application. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of this appeal.
6. Heard on both sides.
7. The application for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected on two grounds. Firstly, the family of deceased is not in a distressed situation. Secondly, second petitioner is working as a Teacher and also draws family pension. The pleadings do not disclose that whether there are any other members depending on second petitioner. Considering all these aspects, we hold that appellants neither get any statutory nor constitutional right for appointment on compassionate ground. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, even for considering the appointment on compassionate ground, the pensionary benefits should also be taken into consideration. Hence, we find no ground to set aside the impugned order.
The appeals are accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE hnm