IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR W.P.NO.36949/2016 (S-RES) BETWEEN S MANJULA @ MANJULA SHARMA, D/O LATE H.SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT MUDDAMMA NILAYA, THOPINAGHATTA, HARIGE, SHIVAMOGGA-577 203 (BY SRI VARADARAJ R HAVALDAR, ADV.) AND 1. MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD., HAVING OFFICE AT ‘PARADIM PLAZA’, A.B.SHETTY CIRCLE, MANGALORE-575 001, REPTD. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD., OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (V), POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION CIRCLE, BALRAJ URS ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA-577 103 ... PETITIONER 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPN. LTD., CORPORATE OFFICE, BENGALURU-560 009.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SONA M BADIGER, ADV. FOR R1-R3 – ABSENT.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE FILE FROM THE RESPONDENTS REGARDING COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT APPLICATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THEM, INCLUDING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT / ORDER DTD.11.2.2014 VIDE ANNEX-Q TO VERIFY FACTUAL CORRECTNESS AND LEGALITY TO THE SAME AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT/ ORDER DTD.11.2.2014 VIDE ANNEX-Q BY ALLOWING THIS W.P ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. The matter was listed on 02.08.2019. On that day, noting the absence of the Counsel for the respondents, the matter was adjourned to give an opportunity to the respondents to appear and have their say. The matter is listed today. Case is called. Yet again, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents. The matter lies in a narrow compass.
2. The petitioner claims to be daughter of one H.Srinivas. That the said H.Srinivas died in harness on 23.04.2013. That on the date of death of the former employee, the status of the petitioner was that of a married daughter. The petition for dissolution of marriage was filed on 13.06.2013 and came to be disposed off on 01.08.2013. That as on the date of death of her father, petitioner enjoyed the status of married daughter. But the fact remains that shortly thereafter, the marriage came to be dissolved. The status of the petitioner as on the date of application or even as on today is not denied by the respondents. In the event, the petitioner remains unmarried even as on today, then certainly the petitioner would be entitled for consideration of her appointment on compassionate grounds as the surviving dependent of the late father.
3. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned endorsement at Annexure-Q is quashed. Respondent No.1 shall consider the case of the petitioner afresh in the light of the observations made herein above.
There shall be order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE KK CT-HR