Partly allowed

Ratnavva v. Hubli Electricity Supply Co. Ltd.

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2012WP/40223/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an endorsement denying appointment on compassionate grounds for her deceased husband's son. The Court held the endorsement violated Articles 14 and 16 and natural justice, set it aside, and remitted the matter for reconsideration. The writ was allowed in part.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsement dated 08.06.2004 set aside; matter remitted to respondent within four months for reconsideration after hearing to appoint son on compassionate grounds if eligible.

Ratnavva Vs Hubli Electricity Supply Co… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

CIRCUIT BENCH, AT DHARWAD IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶2

DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2012

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.PATIL

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.40223/2004(S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

R/at C/o Sri.N.N.Dombar, Siddeshwarnagar, Smt.Ratnavva Gopan Koppa, Hubli. W/o Late Huleyappa Dombar, ... Petitioner Age: 35 years,

¶8

(By Shri. V.S.Naik, & Smt.Manjula N Kulkarni, Advs.)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Managing Director. Hubli Electricity Supply Co Ltd., Hubli, Rept. by its 1.

¶11

Supply Co Ltd., The Superintending Engineer Eleci. O & M Circle, Hubli Electricity 2.

¶12

Power House Compound, Hubli.

¶13

Hubli Electricity Supply Co Ltd., Vidyagiri, Dharwad. The Executive Engineer Eleci. O & M Division, 3.

¶14

• . . Respondents

¶15

(By Sri.Shivaraj P Mudhol, Adv. for R3; Ri & R2 served.)

¶16

This Writ Petition is filed Under Articles 226 and 227 of the of to quash endorsement Constitution dated 8.6.2004, vide Anx.D, etc. India, praying

¶17

This writ petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court made the following:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

(Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Regulations, 1997 and vide In of impugned of India. instant apart from being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution has respondents to provide employment on compassionate grounds to assailed correctness endorsement dated 08.06.2004, petitioner her son. the petition, the She has further sought for a direction to direct the Annexure-D, since the same is unjust, arbitrary and violative of provisions of Karnataka Electricity Board Employees’ Recruitment

¶20

the year 1992, vide Official Memorandum dated 11.02.1992 on a 2. The brief facts of petitioner’s case are that, petitioner’s A true copy of the husband Huleyappa appointed as a part-time Sanitary worker by the erstwhile Karnataka Electricity Board in consolidated wage of Rs.200/- per month. Dombar was

¶21

/ F

¶22

¶23

A. has death respondents and submitted a representation dated 18.05.2003, representation sanitary worker is posted and accordingly, he reported for duty on approached respondents, submitted continuously for a period of 11 years. petitioner grounds to her son Manjunath. studied upto 8th standard and there is no other earning member Unfortunately, said H.D. deceased, 13.03.2003. untimely 13.09.1992. the the she 18.05.2004 and also got issued notice through her Advocate on 19.06.2004, vide Annexure-E. Dombar died on 13.03.2003 while in service leaving behind his the age of majority. worked worked more She contended that she has son would be considered by the respondent soon after he attains Since, there was no response from the one The deceased was appointed and posted to work in the office on In view of till of vide Annexure-B, requesting for appointment on compassionate in the family of deceased. Hence, she has sought for appointment In the meanwhile, she received the official memorandum dated 11.02.1992 is produced at Annexure of the He He to her son hoping that her request for appointment of her minor wife and two minor sons Manjunath and Shivaji. 3rd respondent for a period of six months till regular

¶24

¶25

By giving this 2’ 211d respondent rejected the request of petitioner dependants of the deceased temporary employees. endorsement issued respondent informing that deceased was discharging his duties as endorsement dated 08.06,2004, vide Annexure-D. impugned dated 08.06.2004 reason, the the Company, there is no provision to provide employment to the seeking appointment on compassionate grounds and issued the a temporary sanitary worker and as per the Rules prevailing in by

¶26

to of 3. Before 6 Karnataka further, Recruitment relevant these regulations regarding are the made Regulations, applicability proceeding the the Regulations. reference provisions Regulation Electricity Board (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Regulation 6(4) of the Regulations reads as under: Employees’ is 1997. given in The of

¶27

for a limited period or on ad hoc arrangement dehors the person who at the time of death was on re-employment rules of recruitment.” or was employed as casual labour or on contract basis be made in the case of the dependant of a deceased “The appointment under these regulations shall not

¶28

//F

¶29

¶30

her husband stating that, since the dependants of the deceased arbitrary and illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the appointment on compassionate grounds can be denied in case arrangement. matter, the endorsement has been issued mechanically without Constitution of India. Therefore, she was constrained to file this the deceased was employed as a casual labourer or was on re much as they fulfill all other criteria fixed in the regulations, the status of deceased was that of a temporary sanitary worker application of mind and such endorsement is not sustainable and are entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds in as denial of this benefit by the respondents is totally unjust, employment or on contract basis for a limited period or on adhoc In the instant case, the case of petitioner is that denied the benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds. is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. She further submitted petition. one more representation within one year from the date of death of Hence, the family members cannot be 4. After careful reading of the above provision, it is clear that Having not examined properly, considering this aspect of the for a period of 11 years.

I have gone through the grounds urged by petitioner in the gross Annexure-D, carefully Therefore, I am of the the affording violation of principles of natural justice. in It is manifest on the face of the contents of the The case made out by petitioner is that, it is not a of vide The said endorsement does not contain any discussions and to view 5. instant that, at stretch and perused endorsement 08.06.2004, endorsement that it is not sustainable and is liable to be vitiated. Further, the endorsement is issued without endorsement is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside at the reasonable opportunity petitioner such dated reasons nor any reference as such made by recording the relevant communication any impugned cum regulations. speaking order. the imagination, threshold. considered petition

¶35

case and in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, Annexure-D, The vide 6. Without further going into the merits and demerits of the endorsement dated 08.06.2004, as stated supra, the instant petition is allowed in part. impugned

¶36

¶37

law respondents to reconsider the same and pass the appropriate reasonable issued by respondent No.2 is hereby set, aside. date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already given any accordance after opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and dispose of the same Matter stands remitted back to the jurisdictional competent authority of the order in with expeditiously as possible within a period of four months from the employment on compassionate ground to the petitioner’s son. with reference to the relevant regulations as stated above, as Ordered accordingly. affording

¶38

JUD9Z

¶39

hnm/

Ratnavva v. Hubli Electricity Supply Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratnavva v. Hubli Electricity Supply Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

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

Laxmana Vs the Commissioner City Municipality

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

Vinayaka Murlidhara Joshi Vs the Managing Director Karnataka Power Transmission