Partly allowed

Laxmana v. the Commissioner City Municipality

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2012WP/14249/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition in part to quash an endorsement rejecting a compassionate appointment. The court held the order was vitiated for violating principles of natural justice due to lack of a hearing and remitted the matter for fresh consideration after an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned endorsement dated 30/05/2006 and the Deputy Commissioner's communication dated 03/11/2003 were set aside. The matter was remitted to the first respondent for reconsideration after affordi

Laxmana Vs the Commissioner City… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

¶3

DATED THIS THE⁵ th DAY OF MARCH 2012

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.PATIL

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 14249/2006(5-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

LAXMANA, S/0 LATE MADDILATE AGE 36 YEARS, R/O WARD NO.16 GANDHINAGAR HOSPET.

¶9

PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI V.P. KULKARNI, ADV)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPALITY HOSPET, DIST. BELLARY.

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELLARY, DIST. BELLARY.

¶14

RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI H.B.NARAYANA, ADV. FOR Ri. SRI P.H.GOTKHINDI, HCGP FOR R2.)

¶16

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 30.5.2006 VIDE ANNE.D AND ETC.

¶17

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

correctness of the endorsement issued by the first respondent dated 30.05.2006 vide Annexure “D” and has further sought for Appointment on Compassionate Grounds. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the of the petitioner for appointment under the provisions of Rules of a mandamus directing the first respondent to send the proposal

¶20

request, that he has not made representation within one year from the 11/06/1999 Instead year after representation appointment respondent respondent issued an endorsement dated 30/05/2006 intimating compassionate the the petitioner that his request has been rejected on the ground father, the family was put in financial difficulty. His father being the only earning member, the Therefore, ground attaining was constrained seeking one majority. considering used to take care of the family. first The grievance of the petitioner is that, his father was first to submit to working in City Municipality, Hospet, as a poura karmika. he died on 27/10/1985. In view of the untimely death of the his his within of on on his 2. He

¶21

¶22

date of death of the employee. Being aggrieved by the endorsement issued by the first respondent, the petitioner has presented this writ petition seeking appropriate relief.

¶23

I have perused the grounds urged in the petition and carefully gone through the impugned endorsement issued by the first respondent.

¶24

Indeed, the impugned endorsement dated 30/05/2006 would indicate that since the petitioner did not make a representation within one year from the date of death of his father, his request for appointment on compassionate ground cannot be considered. The said endorsement issued by the first respondent vide Annexure “D” cannot be sustained and is liable to be vitiated for the reason that the said endorsement is passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner and is against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, at any stretch of imagination, the endorsement cannot be sustained. Without going further into the merits or demerits of the case, it would suffice to give appropriate direction to the respondents.

¶25

¶26

Accordingly, the petition is allowed in part. The impugned endorsement dated 30/05/2006 issued by the^{firstrespondent} vide Annexure “E” and also the communication^issuedbythe Deputy Commissioner dated 03/11/2003 referred in reference No.1 are hereby set aside. The matter stands remitted to the first respondent for reconsideration of the same afresh^after affording an opportunity of hearing the petitioner and forward the same to the second respondent, if he is found eligible, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order, if not already forwarded. If the recommendation has been forwarded to the second respondent, the second respondent is directed to reconsider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and disposed of the same as expeditiously as possible within four months from the date of recommendation to be forwarded by the first respondent.

¶27

With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.

¶28

Sd! JUDGE

¶29

kmv

Laxmana v. the Commissioner City Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmana v. the Commissioner City Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Special Land Acquisition Officer Hidkal Dam Vs Ganapati Kadappa Kumbar

R S Kayi S/O Sodalingappa Vs Bijapur Grameena Bank Rep by Its Chairman

Govinda Ranga Rao Kulkarni Vs Bijapur Grameena Bank Rep by Its Chairman

Ratnavva Vs Hubli Electricity Supply Co. Ltd.

S N Haveri Vs the General Manager (Administrative and Hrd)

Vinayaka Murlidhara Joshi Vs the Managing Director Karnataka Power Transmission