Disposed

Nandini D/O. Late Krishnakumar v. Assistant Executive Engineer

Karnataka HC14 Feb 2019WP/103721/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka directed respondent authorities to consider and dispose of representations made by the petitioner's family for compassionate appointment of her mother's deceased brother-in-law, sans technical issues.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to consider and dispose of representations (Annexures C to C6) within eight weeks.

Nandini D/O. Late Krishnakumar Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.103721/2018 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

NANDINI D/O. LATE KRISHNAKUMAR AGE:26 YEARS, OCC:UNEMPLOYED GRADUATE, R/O. H.NO.43/A, 17TH WARD, ANANTAPUR COLONY, 3RD CROSS, SATYANARAYANPET, BALLARI.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. SUNITHA P. KALASOOR, ADV.)

¶11

AND

¶12

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MECHANICAL SUB DIVISION, RURAL DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING DEPT. BALLARI.

¶13

THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E) KARNATAKA, PARK HOUSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BALLARI DISTRICT, BALLARI.

¶15

... RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.A.R.RODRIGUES, AGA)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENTS CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S FAMILY FROM THE YEAR 2001 TILL TODAY, THE SAME BEING PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C TO C6 DATED:18.03.2017.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA.

¶22

The case of the petitioner is that her father was appointed as a Senior Typist in the Department of Mechanical Sub Division, Ballari. That on 21.07.1989 the service of the father of the petitioner were regularized. That on 04.01.2001 the father of the petitioner passed away on account of cardiac arrest. That on 18.10.2001, mother of the petitioner had submitted a representation to the respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds. But as the petitioner and her siblings were minors, the petitioner’s mother was advised to make a representation immediately on the children attaining majority. That on the petitioner attaining majority, the mother of the petitioner and wife of the deceased employee has been representing repeatedly since 2003, but that the same has remained unconsidered. Hence, the instant writ petition.

¶23

¶24

Learned AGA would contend that since the petitioners are claiming government service, the appropriate forum for the petitioner would be the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. Though the learned AGA is right in contending so, the same is not an absolute bar for this Court to exercise the jurisdiction in case of the instant nature, wherein the petitioner has sought for the issuance of mandamus for consideration of the representation for appointment on compassionate ground.

¶25

In that view of the matter and also in view of the fact that no technical issues are involved nor any prejudice would be caused to the respondents, this Court is of the opinion that this instant writ petition could be disposed off by directing the respondents to consider and dispose off the representation made by the petitioner vide Annexures – C to C6.

¶26

Accordingly, the petition is disposed off with a direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 3 to consider and

¶27

¶28

dispose off the representations vide Annexures – C to C6 to the writ petition.

¶29

The consideration and disposal shall be in accordance with law and within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶30

Petition stands disposed off accordingly.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

Rsh

Nandini D/O. Late Krishnakumar v. Assistant Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandini D/O. Late Krishnakumar v. Assistant Executive Engineer

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

Shri.Uttam S/O Chandrakant Sanadi Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Arun Jaiswal (Meerapuraiaya) Vs Sri Chandrashekhar W/O

Anita W/O Kandi Hemaraddi Vs Sajjanna Ganigera

Shri.Rayazahmed S/O Hazarathsab Sharif Vs Enquiry Officer/Chief Executive Officer

Sri.D.F.Babu Sab S/O Fakkurasab Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.D.F.Babu Sab S/O Fakkurasab Vs the State of Karnataka