IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION NO.52413/2013 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
Sri L. Naveen, S/o. late R. Lingappa, Father Ex-employee of Pragathi Gramina Bank, Aged about 27 years, Now R/a Yeraballi, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District.
… Petitioner (By Sri R. Hemanth Raj, Advocate) AND:
1. The General Manager, Central (Head) Office, Pragathi Gramin Bank, Sangantkal Road, Gandhinagar, Bellary – 583 103.
2. The Chairman, Central (Head) Office, Pragathi Gramin Bank, Sangantkal Road, Gandhinagar, Bellary – 583 103.
3. The Manager, Regional Office, Pragathi Gramin Bank, IUDI Layout, Chitradurga – 583 104.
(By Sri T.P. Muthanna, Advocate) .... Respondents This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside/quash the order dated 22.08.2013 and its reference No.HO PW IR 3878 HV 2013-14 passed by the R-1 vide Annexure-D and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioner files a memo dated 22.10.2019, praying to dismiss prayer No.’C’ with regard to quash and declare that circular No.108/2008- 09 and dated 10.01.2009 produced at Annexure-A is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and opposed to law.
2. Said memo is placed on record.
3. Prayer No.’C’ of the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed for time being.
4. The petitioner filed the present writ petition sought to quash the order dated 22.08.2013 and its reference No.HO PW IR 3878 HV 2013-14 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-D and writ of mandamus directing the respondents to take appointment of the petitioner in respondent Bank as clerical cadre or subordinate staff cadre as per the circular No.108/2008-09 dated 10.01.2009 vide Annexure-A and to quash the order/endorsement dated 11.02.2014 issued by respondent as per Annexure-F.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner’s father late R. Lingappa was working as a Sub-stop-648 (attendar) at Pragathi Gramin Bank, Belegere Branch, Challakere Taluk. During the course of the employment, he died on 25.07.2009 leaving behind his son- the petitioner, daughter, wife and aged mother. When the petitioner’s father was died, the petitioner was aged about twenty years and he has completed Second Year Pre-University Examination (II PUC) in second class in the year 2007 at Government P.U. College, Hiriyur. Due to the economic condition of the family, the petitioner has not able to continue his further studies. He submitted representations to the respondent Bank on 18.08.2009 and on 28.09.2009 requesting to provide employment under compassionate ground. The respondents have failed to consider the request for appointment of the petitioner under compassionate grounds. Therefore the petitioner was constrained to file the writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.39444/2012.
4. After hearing both the parties, this Court by order dated 25.07.2013 disposed off the said writ petition directing the respondent Bank to consider the representations of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in the light of the Circular No.108/2008-09 dated 10.01.2009 and pass appropriate order within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Subsequently, the petitioner filed representation on 21.08.2013 requesting the authority to comply the order stated supra. The respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner vide Annexure-D stating that the father of the petitioner expired on 25.07.2009 while in service and hence the dependents of the deceased are covered under the new scheme circulated vide Circular No.106/2006- 07 dated 19.10.2006 and further stated that as per the said scheme, the dependants of the deceased employee may submit the representation for payment of Ex-Gratia and the same will be examined as per the scheme. On one more representation of the petitioner dated 28.08.2013, Annexure-F came to be issued by the respondents rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for.
5. Respondents filed objections and have not disputed the fact that the father of the petitioner died on 25.07.2009 during the course of the employment. It is further contended that the scheme came into effect from 09.10.2006 and all the applications for appointment on compassionate grounds, if any, pending as on the effective date will be dealt in accordance with the said scheme. In the scheme it is specifically mentioned that the old scheme for appointment on compassionate ground has been abolished and pending applications for such appointments should be considered under the new scheme. It is further contended that Smt. Mamatha R., wife of the deceased employee late R.Lingappa and the mother of the petitioner has submitted an application dated 23.07.2012 for sanction of Ex-gratia (Lumpsum Amount) in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds. Since the application submitted was not in the regular format and the details were insufficient, the respondent Bank informed her by a letter dated 03.12.2012 to submit a revised application with required documents and further contended that the Bank has examined the representations of the petitioner as ordered by this Court in the earlier writ petition No.39444/2012 filed by the petitioner which came to be disposed off directing the respondent Bank to examine the representations of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner filed contempt petition against the respondent Bank for non-compliance of the said order. This Court dismissed the contempt petition filed by the petitioner vide order dated 24.02.2014. Therefore, sought to dismiss the writ petition.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties to lis.
7. Sri R.Hemanth Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner’s father died during the course of the employment under the respondent Bank on 25.07.2009. As per the existing circular No.108/2008-09 dated 10.01.2009, the respondents ought to have considered the representation of the petitioner. Since from 2009 the respondnets have not taken any steps to consider the request of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file writ petition 39444/2019. He would further contend that this Court by order dated 25.07.2013 allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as per the circular No.108/2008-09 dated 10.01.2009. Unfortunately, the respondents have relied upon 2006 circular and rejected claim of the petitioner. He further contended that the impugned order passed by the respondent as per Annexures-‘D’ and ‘F’ is in utter violation of the direction issued by this Court and the same cannot be sustained.
8. He further contended that the contempt petition filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed by this Court only on the ground that in view of the endorsement issued by the respondent as per Annexure-F, the petitioner is having liberty to challenge the said endorsement before this Court. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition with a direction to the respondent Bank to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment or payment of Ex-gratia amount with interest as per the circular dated 10.01.2009 or any subsequent circular issued by the respondent Bank.
9. Per contra Sri T.P.Muthanna, learned counsel for the respondents sought to justify the impugned order reiterating the averments made in the statement of objections and contended that in fact, the application filed by the petitioner’s mother was rejected informing her to file a revised application with all required documents for ex-gratia payment. Same has not been produced. He further contended that even in Annexures-‘D’ & F, the respondents in categorical terms reiterated that the dependants of the deceased employee may submit the representation for payment of Ex-gratia and the same will be examined as per the scheme.
Admittedly, as on today neither the petitioner nor the petitioner’s mother filed any application for payment of Ex-gratia amount. Therefore, he sought to justify the impugned order and impugned endorsement issued by the respondent Bank and sought to dismiss the writ petition.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner’s father late Sri R.Lingappa was working as a Sub-stop- 648 (attendar) at Pragathi Gramin Bank, Belegere Branch, Challakere Taluk and died during the course of the employment on 25.07.2009. It is also not in dispute that as on the date of death of father of the petitioner, the petitioner was aged about 20 years and has completed II PUC in II class in the year 2007. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner made representation on 18.08.2009 and 28.09.2009 seeking appointment on compassionate ground. Since the respondents have not considered the representation, the petitioner was forced to file the writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.39444/2012 before this Court. After hearing both the parties, this Court by order dated 25.07.2013 disposed off the writ petition and observed that, in the light of the submission made by the learned counsel and also in view of the circular No.108/2008-09 dated 10.01.2009 find that the respondent Bank has not complied its duty in considering the representations made by the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Therefore, the respondent Bank was directed to consider the representations made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
11. It is also not in dispute that since the respondents have not complied the order of this Court, the petitioner was forced to file contempt petition before the Division Bench of this Court against the respondent in CCC No.145/2014 (Civil). The Division Bench of this Court by the order dated 24.02.2014 observed that in view of the endorsement, it is open for the petitioner to challenge the same in accordance with law and dismissed the contempt petition. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court challenging both Annexures-D and F.
12. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner’s father died in the year 2009. As on the date of death of father of the petitioner, the circular No.108/2008-09 dated 10.01.2019 was in force. The respondents ought to have consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in terms of circular or for payment of Ex-gratia amount. Same was not considered. Therefore, the petitioner was before this Court in W.P.No.39444/2012 and this Court by order dated 25.07.2013 directed the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner in terms of the circular stated supra. The said order passed by this Court has reached finality. It is also not in dispute that while rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment, the respondents in both Annexures-‘D’ and ‘F’ stated that the dependants of the deceased employee under the scheme may submit application/representation for payment of Ex-gratia amount and the claim will be examined as per the scheme. Admittedly, the petitioner has not filed any application under the scheme for payment of Ex-gratia amount. It is also not in dispute that the respondent bank has not considered the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment or payment of Ex-gratia amount under 2009 scheme.
13. In view of the above, the impugned endorsement issued as per Annexures-D and F relying on 2006 circular cannot be sustained and it requires reconsideration strictly in accordance with law.
14. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders/endorsements as per Annexures-D and F dated 22.08.2013 and 11.02.2014 are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the respondent bank i.e., respondent No.2 for reconsideration of the claim of the petitioner in the light of the circular No.108/2008-09 dated 10.01.2009 and any subsequent circular issued thereafter either for compassionate appointment or payment of Ex-gratia amount as contemplated strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
15. The petitioner is also permitted to file fresh application for Ex-gratia amount, if, he is not interested for compassionate appointment and the respondent No.2 shall consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE PN/