IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.41617 OF 2017 (GM-RES) Between:
Sri. Saleem S/o Late H. Moulai Aged about 45 years Residing at J. M. Road Mehaboob Nagar Vijayapura Railway Station Karnataka – 586 104 (By Sri. Naik N.R., Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka Represented by its Secretary Law Department Vidhana Soudha Bengaluru – 560 001 2. The Registrar General High Court of Karnataka High Court Building Bengaluru – 560 001 3. The Deputy Registrar High Court of Karnataka (LCA) Bengaluru – 560 001 … Petitioner … Respondents (By Sri. Sridhar N. Hegde, HCGP for R1;
Smt. Vidyulatha B.V., Advocate for R2 and R3.) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the endorsement dated 24.04.2017 issued in No.LCA-II 133/2017, by the second respondent, which is produced at Annexure-E and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri. Naik N.R., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. Sridhar N. Hegde, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
Smt. Vidyulatha B.V., learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks for quashment of the endorsement dated 24.02.2017 passed by respondent No.2 and also seeks a direction to the respondents to provide appointment as per his qualification.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the father of the petitioner, namely, late Sri. H. Moulali was appointed as peon and subsequently on promotion, at the relevant time, he was working as Process Server. A Departmental Enquiry was initiated against the father of the petitioner for violating Rule 3 (ii) and (iii) of Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. In the aforesaid Departmental Enquiry, an order dated 22.10.2007 was passed by which penalty to retire compulsorily from services was imposed on the father of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before the Administrative Judge. However, the aforesaid appeal was allowed by an order dated 19.10.2012 and the matter was remitted for fresh inquiry and a direction was issued to reinstate the petitioner’s father in service with back wages.
4. Thereafter, Departmental Enquiry was again initiated. In the aforesaid Departmental Enquiry, by an order dated 26.05.2015, the Disciplinary Authority once again imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement from the services. Being aggrieved, the petitioner’s father preferred an appeal before the Administrative Judge of this Court. During the pendency of the appeal before the Administrative Judge, the father of the petitioner expired on 09.01.2017. The petitioner thereafter, submitted a representation on 18.03.2017 seeking appointment on compassionate basis.
5. The aforesaid application was rejected by endorsement dated 25.04.2017 on the ground that the father of the petitioner was not in employment as on the date of his death and therefore, in the absence of any provisions under the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, request of the petitioner cannot be acceded to. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, the father of the petitioner unfortunately expired and therefore, the petitioner is ought to be considered sympathetically by the respondent. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents submitted that in the absence of any provisions under the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules 1996, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be acceded to as the father of the petitioner was not in employment as on the date of his death.
7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. Rule 1 (3) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 reads as under:
”1(3) . Not withstanding anything contained in the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 and rules of recruitment specially made in respect of any service or post or deemed to have been made under the Karnataka Civil Services Act, 1978 (Karnataka Act 14 of 1990), these rules shall apply in respect of appointment of the dependent of a deceased Government servant on compassionate grounds.”
Rule 2 (k) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 reads as under:
“2(k). ‘Government Servant’ means a person who is the member of the Civil Service of the State of Karnataka or who holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the State of Karnataka and includes any person whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the Government of India, the Government of another State, a local authority, any person or persons whether incorporated or not.”
8. From perusal of the aforesaid Rules, it is evident that in order to seek appointment on compassionate basis, a person has to be in service as on the date of his death when the dependent seeks appointment. It is well settled in law that appointment on compassionate basis cannot be granted de hors the Rules contained in the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner, as on the date of his death, was not in employment and in absence of the provisions in the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, no relief as sought for by the petitioner can be granted and claim of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the respondent on 25.04.2017.
9. In view of the preceding analysis, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-