Disposed

Sri Manjunath v. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation

Karnataka HC4 Oct 2012WP/26174/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking certiorari to quash a rejection of a compassionate appointment application. The Court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner, a widower, on par with a widow regarding age relaxation under compassionate appointment regulations.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is directed to be considered on par with a widow for age relaxation in the matter of compassionate appointment.

Sri Manjunath Vs Karnataka Power… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

WP No.26174/2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2012

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBHASH B ADI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.26174 OF 2012 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI MANJUNATH S/O CHIKKAVENKATARAVANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, KALLOODI VILLAGE, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.PRADEEP C.YADAV, ADV. FOR M/s. JUS LEX, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., REP BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, (ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT) CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560009.

¶13

THE ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER COMMERCIAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE BANGLAORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., GOWRIBIDANUR SUB DIVISION, GOWRIBIDANUR.

¶14

THE CHIEF ENGINEER COMMERCIAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., KOLAR.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

(SRI. B C PRABHAKAR, ADV. FOR R1 SRI.VISHWANATH MATH, ADV. FOR SRI.V.J.KUMAR, ADV. FOR R2 AND R3)

¶17

WP No.26174/2012

¶18

¶19

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the endorsement dated 8.2.12 issued by the R3 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner vide Annx-A and etc.

¶20

This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing Orders this day, the Court made the following:-

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Petitioner has sought for compassionate appointment in

¶23

the office of the respondent Nos.2 and 3. However, the request of the petitioner is rejected by the respondent No.3 on the ground that the petitioner is aged about 40 years 9 months and the age limit prescribed for compassionate appointment is 38 years.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, respondent No.3 has relaxed the age limit in so far as the widow is concerned relying on the regulations relating to the compassionate appointment. He further submits that there should not have been any discrimination between a widow and a widower. If the widower has made any application, the same should be considered on par with that of a widow in the matter of age relaxation.

¶25

WP No.26174/2012

¶26

¶27

On the other hand, Sri.B.C.Prabhakar, learned counsel submits that the Regulation provides age relaxation only for a widow and not for a widower.

¶28

Admittedly, it is the case of compassionate

¶29

appointment. Compassionate appointment arises only when there is death of an employee during service. If there is any provision of age relaxation in case of a widow, the same benefit may be extended to a widower by taking into consideration the circumstances that when the death is uncertain, and widow could be given benefit of age relaxation, and if the object is to provide the employment to widower also, then both should have been considered on par. Hence, I find that the respondent be directed to consider the case of the petitioner on par with that of a widow for giving age relaxation in the matter of compassionate appointment. Accordingly, petition is disposed of.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

Sri Manjunath v. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Manjunath v. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation

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

Sri Dhamendra Kumar T P Vs the State of Karnataka

G S Panchakshari Vs the Chief Personnel Manager

Sri R Kalairasan Vs the Deputy Inspector of Police

Puspanjali M C Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

Shilpa B P Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Prakash G Vs State of Karnataka