IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL No.2245 OF 2017 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN:
SRI. SANDESH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS SON OF LATE LAKSHMINARAYANA HEBBAGILU MANE M G ROAD, MAYYADI POST BYNDOOR, KUNDAPUR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 576101 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.G.S.NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR K S R T C ., K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560027.
2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER K S R T C ., MANGALURU DIVISION MANGALURU- 575001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.34131/2014 DATED 07/09/2015.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 07.09.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 34131 of 2014, by which the petition was dismissed, the writ petitioner is in appeal.
2. The writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the endorsement bearing No.KaRaSa:MamVi:SiSha: MruAa/4047/13-14 dated 23.01.2014/07.02.104 issued by the second respondent and endorsement bearing No.KaRaSa:MamVi:Sisha:MruAa:4047:13-14 dated 30/ 31.05.2014 issued by the first respondent; to quash Circular dated 23.09.1999 and for a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds. The petitioner is son of H.Lakshminarayana, who was working as senior Driver in the first respondent- Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation at Kundapura Depot. It is stated that father of the petitioner Lakshminarayana died on 06.09.2013 while in service. Sri.H.Lakshminarayana had four children, 3 sons and a daughter. The petitioner, on 30.10.2013 submitted a representation to the second respondent requesting for appointment on compassionate grounds. On consideration of the application, the second respondent issued endorsement dated 23.01.2014/ 07.02.2014 stating that the brother of the petitioner i.e. first son of the deceased Lakshminarayana is working in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited and as per Circular dated 23.09.1999, the income of the family is more than the prescribed limit as such, the petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. Thereafter, the mother of the petitioner made a representation stating that the eldest son whose income is taken to reject the claim for appointment on compassionate ground is not residing with them, since last ten years and they are residing separately. It is also stated that the first son has separate Ration Card and also filed an affidavit of Subramanya, the eldest son stating that he is living separately. The first respondent-Corporation issued an endorsement dated 30/31.05.2014 stating that already endorsement dated 07.02.2014 has been issued and the name of the petitioner has been removed from the list of candidates waiting for compassionate appointment. It is stated that the petitioner along with the mother is residing at Kundapura whereas the brother Subramanya is residing at Bengaluru. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. Challenging those endorsements and the Circular dated 23.09.1999, the instant writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition holding that as per the Circular dated 23.09.1999, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment and also upheld the Circular dated 23.09.1999. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is in appeal.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant- petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent- Corporation.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge committed a serious error in dismissing the writ petition and upholding the Circular dated 23.09.1999. It is contended that the petitioner’s elder brother Subramanya is working in a Private Company and he is living separately. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner’s elder brother is living in Bengaluru separately with his wife and two children. Rejection of petitioner’s claim for appointment on compassionate ground on the ground that the petitioner’s brother is working in a Private firm is unjust and contrary to law.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner cannot seek appointment on compassionate grounds as a matter of right. As per the norms of the Corporation, the petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds, since his brother is working in a Private Firm getting a net salary of Rs.35,718/-.
6. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on going through the appeal papers including the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge do not suffer either from perversity or erroneousness. The learned Single Judge has passed a reasoned order, which requires no interference.
7. The father of the petitioner was working as senior driver with the respondent-Corporation. He died on 06.09.2013 while in service. The deceased Lakshminarayana had left behind wife and four children.
The eldest son of the deceased was working as Assistant in Royal Sundaram Insurance Company earning a gross salary of Rs.38,328/-. The respondent-Corporation has formulated a Policy in the matter of compassionate appointment. No one can claim appointment on compassionate grounds as a matter of right. One can seek compassionate appointment only under the Policy or the guidelines of the respective Institutions. The respondent- Corporation has issued a Circular dated 23.09.1999 regarding providing appointment on compassionate grounds to the dependants of deceased employees. The relevant portion of the Circular for the present case is extracted below:
“Clause (ii): In case any member of the family of the deceased employee of the Corporation is employed in any State or Central Government Service or a Public or Private Sector Undertaking or a Private Establishment, the monthly income of the family shall be taken into consideration on the basis of the Certificate issued by his/her employer and in case such a member is self-employed, on the basis of the Certificate issued by a Revenue Officer not below the rank of Tahsildar.”
8. The above clause would make it clear that if any member of the family of the deceased employee is working in any State, Central, Public or Private Sector or Private establishment, one would be not entitled for compassionate appointment. If one fulfills the conditions enumerated in circular dated 23.09.1999, he would be entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. In the case on hand, the petitioner has failed to fulfill the criteria mentioned in Circular dated 23.09.1999 and as such, the respondent-Corporation has rejected the claim of the petitioner.
9. The appointment on compassionate ground is provided to get over the immediate financial crisis due to the death of the earning member of the family. From the material on record, it is clear that the elder brother of the petitioner is employed and is earning gross salary of Rs.38,328/-. The Circular dated 23.09.1999 which is under challenge was issued in modification of the earlier Circular No.839 dated 09.10.1991. While modifying the Circular, the Corporation inserted certain conditions such as, income criteria and that if any member of the family is in employment, one would not be entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner has failed to point out as to how and why the said Circular is bad in law. It is for the respondent-Corporation to formulate the scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds. Compassionate appointment is not a regular recruitment nor can a person claim as a matter of right. Moreover, at this length of time, after more than 8 years from the death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner would not be entitled for compassionate appointment. Since the very object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of the deceased. If the family of the deceased could sustain for all these years, compassion would not survive for consideration. No ground is made out to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms