IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.35 OF 2015 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
SHRI R. HANUMESH SON OF LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT SONNEPURAM VILLAGE, BERIGAI POST, HOSUR TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT-635 105.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI VISWANATH SHETTY V., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, INDIAN POSTAL DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI-100 101.
2. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED (A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE) REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (HR/ADMN.), BSNL/GTD, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER BENGALURU TELECOM DISTRICT, TELEPHONE HOUSE, RAJA BHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (R&E) BENGALURU TELECOM DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B. PRAMOD, CGC FOR R-1;
SRI VISHNU BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.30064 OF 2014 DATED 28.11.2014.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 28.11.2014, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.30064 of 2014, rejecting the writ petition on the ground of delay, the present appeal is filed.
2. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner contends that the claim was one for ‘compassionate appointment’. That the petitioner was in misery and penury and therefore could not challenge the petition immediately on the death of the deceased. Therefore, there is a marginal delay in challenging the petition. That the writ petition should have been heard on merits. On the contrary, the same was dismissed at the state of admission itself.
The learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be questioned only before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
3. Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 are absent.
4. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that liberty should be granted to the appellant to challenge the impugned order before the Central Administrative Tribunal. So far as delay is concerned, we are of the view that the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in challenging the impugned Endorsement. Moreover, the right of the petitioner requires to be considered as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions. Substantial justice is required to be done and the parties cannot be ousted merely on technicalities. Therefore, the delay if any in challenging the impugned Endorsement in our view, constitute sufficient cause. Therefore, by condoning the delay we hold that the petitioner should approach the Central Administrative Tribunal for necessary relief.
5. That if such an appeal is filed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the Tribunal shall consider the application on merits without reference to the delay in challenging the impugned order.
The writ appeal is accordingly disposed off.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ/-
CT:SM