IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.16544-16545/2017 (S-RES) BETWEEN :
1. N. B. RANGANATHA S/O. LATE BASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHRISTAIN STREET, FIRST CROSS, MANDIPET ROAD, PANDURANGA NAGARA, TUMKUR-572101.
2. SMT. N. RADHAMMA W/O. LATE BASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHRISTAIN STREET, FIRST CROSS, MANDIPET ROAD, PANDURANGA NAGARA, TUMKUR-572101. ... PETITIONERS (BY SMT. RASHMI K., ADV. FOR SRI SUBRAMANYA BHAT M., ADV.) AND:
1. REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-01.
2. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, TUMAKURU-572101. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R. B. SATHYANARAYANA SINGH, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTER DATED 1.10.2015 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27.01.2017 ISSUED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AS THE SAME ARE CONTRARY TO EXPLANATION TO RULE 4(1) OF THE KCS (APPOINTMENT OF COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS) RULES, 1996 BESIDES BEING ILLEGAL, UNJUST, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14, 16, 19 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, BESIDES VIOLATIVE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :
O R D E R The petitioners have challenged the legality of the award dated 01.10.2015, and the communication dated 27.01.2017. By the former order, the first petitioner’s application for appointment on compassionate grounds was rejected by the respondent No.2, the Chief Administrative Officer, District and Sessions Court, Tumakuru. By the latter order, the first petitioner’s representation against the order dated 01.10.2015, has been rejected by the Registrar General of this Court.
2. In a short compass, the facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1, Mr. N. B. Ranganatha, is the son, and petitioner No.2, Mrs. N. Radhamma, is the wife of one Mr. Basavaiah who died in harness on 30.03. 2014, while he was working as a Bailiff in the Court of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Tumkur. Immediately after the death of Mr. Basavaiajh, his son, Mr. N. B. Ranganatha, petitioner No.1, submitted an application on 02.08.2014, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. However, on 08.10.2015, the respondent No.2 informed the petitioner No.1 that his application has been rejected by the respondent No.1 by letter dated 01.10.2015. Since the letter rejecting his application did not contain any reason, petitioner No.1 filed an application on 23.11.2015 under the RTI Act, in order to discover the reasons for rejection of his application. By letter dated 08.12.2015, the State Public Information Officer of this Court informed the petitioner No.1 that since petitioner No.2 was getting the family pension, therefore, it cannot be said that the family was facing financial crisis. After a lapse of one year, on 11.01.2017, the petitioner No.2 submitted a detailed representation against the rejection of the application of petitioner No.1. However, by letter dated 27.01.2017, the respondent No.1 has informed the petitioner No. 2 that no ground is made out for reconsidering the decision dated 01.10.2015. Hence, this petition before this Court.
3. Smt. Rashmi K, the learned counsel for petitioner, has vehemently contended that since the petitioner’s family lost the sole bread earner, the family is facing financial crisis. Secondly, the reasons given for rejecting the application filed by petitioner No.1, are legally untenable. For, according to Rule 4 (1) of the Karnataka Civil Service (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, the monthly income of the family of the deceased government servant from all sources shall not be lesser than the total emoluments including Dearness Allowance. For calculating the monthly income, the income from family pension, lump sum pensionary benefits, and interest earned thereon shall be excluded. Therefore, the reason given by the respondents that since the petitioner No.2 is receiving the family pension, the said reason is legally untenable. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, both the letters dated 01.10.2015, and 27.01.2017, need to be interfered with by this Court.
4. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners, and perused the impugned letters.
5. It is, indeed, trite to state that appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to the regular selection process. The exception has been made in order to ensure that the family which suddenly faces financial crisis needs to be protected from poverty.
6. Needless to say, the longer the time from the date of death of an employee in harness, to the date when the employee approaches this Court for seeking compassionate appointment, the weaker the case of the petitioner becomes. Moreover, it is trite to state that a litigant is expected to be vigilant about his rights and interest. Even if a litigant may have a strong prima-facie case in his favour, but if the litigant is late in approaching the Court, this Court may not rush to his rescue.
7. Admittedly, the father of petitioner No.1 had expired on 30.03.2014. Undoubtedly, by letter dated 01.10.2015, the petitioner’s application was rejected. Even after knowing the reasons for rejection by letter dated 08.10.2015, the petitioner No.2 did not file a detailed representation till 11.01.2017, i.e., after a lapse of over one year. The silence for one year has weakened the case of petitioners for seeking an appointment on compassionate grounds. Even after receiving the communication dated 27.01.2017, the petitioner maintained studied silence for over a period of three months. The present petition has been filed before this court on 18.04.2017. Obviously, the family has managed to financially survive for a period of three years. Therefore, the financial crisis faced by the family, by the sudden death of bread earner, is long over. Hence, the petitioner No.1 cannot claim that he has a right to seek appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, the present writ petition is clearly hit by delay and laches. Even if the petitioners have a prima-facie case in their favour, the relief sought by them, after an inordinate delay of three years, cannot possibly granted by this Court.
8. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petitions. The writ petitions are hereby dismissed.
Np/-
Sd/- JUDGE