Dismissed

Smt Shathya Sheela v. Superintendent Engineer and Ors.

Karnataka HC11 Mar 2020WP/201691/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition filed by the second wife of a deceased deceased employee seeking compassionate appointment. Relying on a Division Bench decision, the court held that a second marriage during the lifetime of the first wife is void under Section 5(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act and the petitioner is not entitled to appointment despite Section 16 rights.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no indulgence granted in the matter; compassion appointment application denied.

Smt Shathya Sheela Vs Superintendent… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶5

WP No.201691/2018 (S-RES)

¶6

Between:

¶7

Smt. Shathya Sheela W/o Late Shivshankar Ingankal, Aged about 30 years, R/at Mannelkeda Village, Tq: Humnabad, District Bidar-585401.

¶8

… Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri. Vishwakrmaraj Nayak, Advocate)

¶10

And:

¶11

Superintendent Engineer O & M GESCOM, Bidar, Dist: Bidar-585401.

¶12

Executive Engineer O & M GESCOM Humnabad, Tq: Humnabad, Dist: Bidar-585401.

¶13

¶14

Assistant Executive Engineer (V) O & M, GESCOM, Sub-Division, Mannakkalli, Tq: Humnabad, Dist: Bidar-585401.

¶15

Smt. Jayashree W/o Late Shivasharanappa, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Housewife, R/at Mannekhelli Village, Tq: Humnabad, District: Bidar-585401.

¶16

… Respondents

¶17

(By Sri. Ravindra Reddy, Advocate for R1 to R3; R4 served)

¶18

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to :

¶19

A) a writ of certiorari by quashing impugned endorsement dated 17.03.2017 bearing No: Hu/Kani/Aa(V)/LaAa/SaLaAa/HiSa(Sa)/1617/9956 found at Annexure: J issued by the 2^nd respondent.

¶20

B) a Writ of Mandamus to directing Respondents No.1 to 3 to consider the application of the petitioner dated 01.03.2017 seeking Compassionate appointment found at AnnexureG in the light of the judgment of this Hon’ble Court dated 05.09.2017 in Smt. T.H. Ashalatha Vs The Commissioner Directorate of Municipal Administration reported in

¶21

C) and grant such other or further relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.

¶22

This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the court made the following:-

¶23

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The short grievance of the petitioner is against the

¶26

rejection of her application for appointment on

¶27

compassionate ground alleging that she happens to be second wife of the employee, who died in harness.

¶28

After service of notice, the respondent-

¶29

Corporation having entered appearance through his counsel, resists the writ petition, contending that a Hindu cannot contract a second marriage during the subsistence of the first one and that, legitimacy for the second cannot be gained by a private agreement between the parties concerned and therefore, there is no vinculum juris of husband and wife between the deceased employee and the petitioner; that being the position, counsel submits, writ petition needs to be dismissed.

¶30

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this

¶31

¶32

Court declines to grant indulgence in the mater, in view Division bench decision dated 29.08.2013 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.442/2010 (S-RES) between Sri. K.Mahehsa V/s The Managing Director, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited and others. Paragraph 2 in the said decision reads as under:

¶33

“In the case of R.Muniraju Vs. The Chief Engineer and Others, the learned Single of this Court after considering the rival contentions held, the wife and children of a deceased employee refer to legally wedded wife i.e., the first wife and her children. If the employee takes a second wife during the lifetime of the first wife, the children through such second wife cannot be considered as dependent members of the family for the purpose of considering them for appointment on compassionate grounds. The second marriage when spouse is living, was held to be void under Section 5(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The legitimacy of the

¶34

¶35

children of void marriages as provided for under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, is only for the purpose of claiming the right in or to the property of the parties and not for claiming any rights against third parties. Therefore, it is clear, the son of the second wife is not entitled to claim compassionate appointment. Otherwise, if such claims are upheld by the employers and by these Courts, it would have the effect of encouraging second marriages and passing orders by the Courts ignoring the statutory provisions which are enacted by the Parliament, with the intention of preventing this malady of second marriage which is prevalent in the society.”

¶36

There is force in the contention of the Panel counsel for the respondent-Corporation that the case of the petitioner is worsen than the one in the above decision in as much as that was a case where the claim for compassionate appointment was made by the son of the second wife, who has some legitimacy under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the limited

¶37

¶38

purpose of inheritance of the property of the parents; even such son was denied relief by the Division Bench and therefore, the question of claim of the second wife being considered will not even remotely arise.

¶39

In the above circumstances, this writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.

¶40

No costs.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

SMP

Smt Shathya Sheela v. Superintendent Engineer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shathya Sheela v. Superintendent Engineer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivagond S/O Sawant Sawalappagol Vs the Divisional Controller Nwkrtc

The Divisional Controller Vs Divakar S/O Bhimsha

Sri Chand Mahboob and Ors. Vs the Admnistrator and Ors.

Sadashiv Dundappa Reddy and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Srikantha S/O Madanalal Ozha Vs the Chief Executive Officer and Ors.

Venkob Rao Pissay S/O Danappa Rao and Ors. Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Ors.