IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN WRIT PETITION NO.45251/2013 (S, RES) BETWEEN:
SMT VARALAXMI H W/O LATE B.M.MAHADEVASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O C/O SRINIVASA, NEAR UMAPATHI GARAGE, CHANDAPURA, ANEKAL ROAD, TALUK:ANEKAL, DISTRICT:BANGALORE URBAN PIN: 562 106.
... PETITIONER (BY SMT K.VANI, ADV.) AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) O & MAINTENANCE SUB-DIVISION, BESCOM, CHANDAPURA-560 081, TALUK:ANEKAL-562 106, DISTRICT:BANGALORE URBAN.
2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) O & MAINTENANCE SUB-DIVISION, BESCOM, CHANDAPURA-560 081, TALUK:ANEKAL, DISTRICT:BANGALORE URBAN.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) COMMERCIAL, EXECUTIVE & MAINTENANCE, BESCOM, BANGALORE RURAL CIRCLE, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
4. THE PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER (INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS), K.P.T.C.L CAUVERI BHAVANA, BANGALORE-560 009.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT GIRIJA PATIL, ADV., FOR R1 TO R3 SMT SURABHI SRINIVAS, ADV., FOR SRI HARIKRISHNA S.HOLLA, ADV., FOR R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE R2 DTD.24.5.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND DIRECT TO THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER FILED FOR JOB UNDER COMPASSIONATE GROUND UNDER FORM-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC., THIS WP COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Smt Varalaxmi H., the petitioner, has approached this Court for setting aside the endorsement dated 24.05.2013 – Annexure-A, issued by 2nd respondent whereby the Executive Engineer (Ele), Chandapura Division, has rejected her request for appointment on compassionate ground.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s husband, namely Mr. B. M. Mahadevaswamy, was working as a probationary Mazdoor with BESCOM. Unfortunately, on 05.05.2008, he died due to an electrical accident. Since the petitioner lost her husband, while he was in harness, on 10.07.2008, the petitioner filed an application under Form No.1 seeking an appointment on compassionate ground in the office of BESCOM. On 04.10.2008, the said application was forwarded by the Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele) to the Executive Engineer (Ele), Chandapura. Subsequently, on 05.11.2008, the Executive Engineer (Ele), forwarded the application to the Superintendent Engineer. Thereafter, on 12.12.2008, the Superintendent Engineer forwarded the application, with the file, to the General Manager, KPTCL, Bangalore.
3. Since her application had not been considered by the respondents, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.44512/2012. By order dated 21.03.2013, this Court directed the respondents to consider her application within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. By endorsement dated 24.03.2013, the petitioner’s application has been rejected by the Executive Engineer (Ele). Hence, the present petition before this Court.
4. Mrs. K. Vani, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that the petitioner had lost her husband due to negligence of the respondents, as he died due to an electrical accident. The petitioner has three daughters to support. Therefore, the respondents ought to have given her compassionate appointment. Due to rejection of the petitioner’s application, by endorsement dated 24.05.2013, the petitioner has been reduced to a hand to mouth existence.
Secondly, despite the order of this Court in W.P.No.44512/2012 dated 21.03.2013, the petitioner’s application has been rejected without assigning proper reason.
5. On the other hand, Smt Girija Patil, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3, has pleaded that although the petitioner’s husband has died in harness, there was no negligence on the part of the respondents.
Secondly, by order dated 21.03.2013, this Court has directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case “in accordance with law”.
Thirdly, the petitioner’s husband was a casual labourer and was not a regular employee. As per the law applicable to KPTCL, there is no provision to provide job to the dependents of casual employee. Hence, the petitioner cannot be appointed on compassionate ground. Therefore, the respondents have rejected her case “in accordance with law”.
Lastly, the petitioner is not justified in pleading that she and her children are starving. For the respondents have already paid the petitioner a compensation of Rs.3,40,620/- by Official Memorandum dated 14.08.2008. Hence, the learned counsel has justified the impugned endorsement.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Undoubtedly, a compassionate appointment is not a regular appointment. But, merely because the appointment is a compassionate one, it cannot be made dehors the law. Even if the petitioner has to support three daughters, even then, her appointment has to be made in compliance with the law. For, law cannot be violated on the basis of misplaced sympathies.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any rules and regulations of KPTCL which would permit the KPTCL to appoint a dependent of a casual laborer on the basis of compassionate ground. Admittedly the petitioner's husband was a casual labourer on the date of his death. Therefore, the respondents are justified in claiming that the petitioner cannot be appointed on compassionate ground.
9. Admittedly, the petitioner was granted a compensation of Rs. 3,50,620/- by the KPTCL at the time of her husband's death. Therefore, the learned counsel for petitioner is unjustified in pleading that the petitioner and her family have been reduced to hand-to-mouth existence. Therefore, the second contention raised by the learned counsel for petitioner is untenable.
10. For the reasons stated above, this Court find no merit in the present writ petition. It is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE PB