Disposed

Manjunatha N v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2020WP/28184/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka directed the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited to consider the petitioner's representation dated 8.5.2017 for appointment on compassionate grounds within six months, noting the absence of corporate rules on the matter.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider the petitioner's representation for compassionate appointment within six months.

Manjunatha N Vs Hindustan Petroleum… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.28184/2018 (S - RES)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

MANJUNATHA N., S/O LATE NAGARAJAPPA G., AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO 34, 5^TH ‘A’ MAIN, 8^TH CROSS, VISHWESHWARAIAH LAYOUT, KALKERE MAINROAD, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 016.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI S.S.ZULAPI, ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCING))

¶11

AND

¶12

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., NO 17, JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD, POST BOX NO 11041, MUMBAI – 400 020 REP. BY SHRI MUKHESH KUMAR SURANA, CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶13

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., NO.17, JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD, POST BOX NO 11041, MUMBAI – 400 020

¶14

¶15

REP. BY SHRI JOSHI PUSHP KUMAR HUMAN RESOURCE DIRECTOR.

¶16

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., REP. BY SHRI IMTIYAZ ARSHAD, GENERAL MANAGER, HUMAN RESOURCES, HPCL PARISHRAMBHAVAN, 7^TH FLOOR, OPP. BABU KHAN ESTATE BUILDING, FATEH MAIDEN ROAD, BASHEER BAGH, HYDERABAD – 500 004.

¶17

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., REP. BY SHRI ANAND KUNAL, OFFICER HUMAN RESOURCES, NO 77, OLD MADRAS ROAD, DOORAVANINAGAR POST, BENGALURU – 560 016.

¶18

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., REP. BY I.JYOTHY, GENERAL MANAGER, LOCATION IN CHARGE AND CHIEF BENGALURU TERMINAL, NEAR DEVANAGUNTHI RAILWAY STATION, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶19

... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI N.S.NARASIMHA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R5 (VIDEO CONFERENCING); R2 – R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED )

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING

¶22

¶23

TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE AN ORDER OF APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS BY CONSIDERING HIS APPLICATION DATED 8.5.2017 VIDE ANNX-B.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for

¶27

a direction to respondents to consider his representation dated 8.5.2007, in terms of AnnexureB, for appointment on compassionate ground.

¶28

The claim of the petitioner is that his father deceased Nagarajappa G., was working in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited as General Senior Assistant and he died in harness on 11.1.2017. On the death of the sole bread winner of the family, the petitioner, who is the son of the deceased, gave a

¶29

¶30

representation to respondents on 8.5.2017 seeking appointment on compassionate ground.

¶31

Heard Sri S.S.Zulapi, learned Counsel appearing

¶32

for the petitioner, Sri N.S. Narasimha Swamy, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 5.

¶33

The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-Corporation would submit that there are no rules prescribed for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds in any Corporation but would submit that the representation would be considered and appointment orders would be passed.

¶34

As there is no consideration of the

¶35

representation with regard to the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds by the respondents-Corporation, without going into

¶36

¶37

the merit of the claim of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents-Corporation to consider the representation given by the petitioner on 8.5.2017 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, in accordance with law, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶38

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶39

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

Cs CT:MJ

Manjunatha N v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjunatha N v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

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

Central Board of Trustees, Epf Vs M/S. Venkateswara Packagings

Smt Jayalakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Annegowda Vs State of Karnataka

Ramanna Vs State of Karnataka

Mr v Jagannatha Vs Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board

Bangalore Metropolitan Vs the Deputy Labour Commissioner