IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S N SATYANARAYANA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM W.P.NO.18767/2018 (S-KAT) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NINGAMMA WIFE OF NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O A CHOLENAHALLI, ADURU POST CHANNARAYAPATTANA, HASSAN DISTRICT-573116.
2. SMT SHILPA C.N. W/O NAVEEN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: TEACHER, R/O A CHOLENAHALLI, ADURU POST CHANNARAYAPATTANA, HASSAN DISTRICT-573116.
3. SRI HARISHA C.N. AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/O A CHOLENAHALLI, ADURU POST CHANNARAYAPATTANA, HASSAN DISTRICT-573116.
... PETITIONERS (BY DR. NANDA KISHORE., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE KARNATAKA STATE NO.2, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560001.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN-573201.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHILPA S.GOGI, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINSTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE, IN APPLICATION NO.6556/2016 DTD. 06.04.2018 PRODUCED AS ANNX-B AND FURTHER ALLOW THE APPLICATION NO.6556/2016 AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, SATYANARAYANA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The applicants 1 to 3 in Application No.6556/2016 on the file of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short “KAT”) have come up in this petition impugning the order dated 6.4.2018 in rejecting their application which was filed seeking quashing of the endorsement dated 8.2.2016 issued by the 3rd respondent in the proceedings bearing No.Sibbandhi(2)/45/2003-04 and also for a direction in the said proceedings to consider the case of the applicants afresh for appointment on compassionate grounds and for other reliefs.
2. The brief facts leading to this writ petition are as under:-
(a) Petitioner No.1 is the mother of one Lokesh.C.N. who died on 20.02.2011 while in service as a Police Constable in Yesluru Station, Sakleshpura Taluk, Hassan District. Hence, a representation was submitted by the petitioner No.1 seeking appointment to petitioners 2 and 3 herein. The applications came to be rejected on the ground that petitioners 2 and 3 being married sister and unmarried brother of the deceased employee, the service Rules does not provide for extension of appointment to them on compassionate grounds.
(b) Thereafter, it is submitted that an amendment was brought to Karnataka Civil Services(Compassionate Appointment) Rules, (for short “KCS Rules”) vide Notification dated 11.7.2012. It is after the said amendment, another representation was submitted by the petitioners on 18.6.2013 and subsequently on 21.4.2014 to consider their request based on the amended provisions of the KCS Rules. One more representation was submitted on 28.1.2016. All these three representations were considered and were rejected by an endorsement dated 8.2.2016 on the ground that the amended provisions of KCS Rules regarding compassionate appointment would not come in aid of the petitioners since the said Rules does not provide for retrospective effect.
(c) The said endorsement was the subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal in Application No.6556/2016 which came to be dismissed on merits by order dated 6.4.2018. It is this order which is sought to be challenged in this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Perused the order impugned with reference to the grounds urged and also the representations, endorsements made available in this behalf.
4. On going through the same, it is clearly seen that in the instant case, the first petitioner’s son and brother of petitioners 2 and 3 namely Lokesh died while in service on 20.2.2011. As per the Rules, which existed on that date, representation for compassionate appointment was required to be filed within one year. It is also to be seen that at the relevant point of time, considering the representation of the unmarried brother and married sister of the deceased for appointment on compassionate ground was not in force. The said benefit is considered by the State only on 11.7.2012 by Gazette notification of even date which is admittedly subsequent to the death of Lokesh and after the representation of petitioners being rejected on the ground that the same does not merit consideration.
5. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that the present writ petition does not merit consideration. The prayer of petitioners herein to consider their application on the basis of amended rule by granting retrospective effect to the amended made to KCS Rules does not merit consideration.
6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed confirming the order of the Tribunal dated 6.4.2018 in Application No.6556 of 2016.
Sd/- JUDGE *alb/-
Sd/- JUDGE