Allowed

Smt Manjula v. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

Karnataka HC14 Oct 2020WP/8158/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court of Karnataka allowed a challenge to the rejection of the petitioner's compassionate ground appointment application. The applicant's husband was a lineman who died in harness. The respondent rejected the application because the petitioner completed her education in Tamil Nadu, not Karnataka. Citing specific i

What did the court decide?

The endorsement dated 17.10.2017 was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the respondents to consider the petitioner's case afresh within three months.

Smt Manjula Vs Bangalore Electricity… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.8158/2018 (S - RES)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SMT.MANJULA W/O LATE M.R.SHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT VASUDEV REDDY LAYOUT, NEEAR AMAR JYOTHI SCHOLL, MULABAGAL, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 131.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI GOVINDARAJ K., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶11

AND

¶12

BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED HEAD OFFICE, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶13

KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION & HUMAN RESOURCES) CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009.

¶14

¶15

SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (E) (COMMERCIAL EXECUTION AND IMPLEMENTATION CIRCLE OFFICE), KOLAR – 563 117.

¶16

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (COMMERCIAL EXECUTION AND IMPLEMENTATION DIVISION), CAMPAIGN REEFS, KGF, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 117.

¶17

... RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI G.C.SHANMUKHA, ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCING); R2 TO R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 17.10.2017 PASSED BY R-3 AT ANNEX-M ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner in this writ petition has called in question the endorsement dated 17.10.2017 – Annexure ‘M’, by which, the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground is rejected

¶23

The facts that are germane for consideration

¶24

of the issue involved in the case are that, the husband

¶25

¶26

of the petitioner was a permanent employee of the respondent – Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BESCOM’ for short). At the relevant point of time, he was working as lineman. He died in harness on 28.12.2016. On the death of the husband of the petitioner, she gave an application seeking an appointment on compassionate ground on 27.02.2017 enclosing all the necessary certificates in terms of the norms with regard to her qualification.

¶27

The application of the petitioner seeking an appointment on compassionate ground was rejected by the BESCOM, on the score that the petitioner has completed her entire education in Tamilnadu and not in Karnataka.

¶28

Heard Sri Govindaraj K., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.C.Shanmukha, learned

¶29

¶30

counsel for the first respondent and perused the material on record.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the second respondent – Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited in reply to an information sought under Right to Information Act, 2005, has furnished information with regard to two instances of candidates being appointed on compassionate ground, notwithstanding the fact that they had completed their education in the State outside the State of Karnataka and would further submit that the reason given by the BESCOM in the impugned endorsement is unsustainable and contrary to Regulation 17(d) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Recruitment and Promotion Regulations (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Regulations’ for short).

¶32

¶33

On the other hand, the learned counsel for first respondent – BESCOM would contend that the instances indicated in the information furnished to the petitioner are entirely different and the petitioner cannot draw a parallel insofar as it concerns an appointment on compassionate ground but would submit that the representation at Annexure ‘C’ dated 27.02.2017, the same would be considered in accordance with law.

¶34

The husband of the petitioner who was a permanent employee in the cadre of lineman died in harness on 28.12.2016. The application filed by the petitioner seeking an appointment on compassionate ground came to be rejected only on the ground that the petitioner has completed her education in Tamilnadu, a State which is outside the State of Karnataka. It is also not in dispute that the second respondent – Karnataka Electricity Supply Company

¶35

¶36

Limited has given appointment in two cases on compassionate ground for the applicants who had completed their education outside the State of Karnataka in terms of the information furnished by the BESCOM, invoking Regulation 17(d) of the said Regulations by relaxing the norms of recruitment.

¶37

Regulation 17(d) of the said Regulations

¶38

reads as follows:

¶39

“17. Relaxation of regulations relating to appointments, age and reservation of vacancies:

¶40

a. xxxxx

¶41

b. xxxxx

¶42

c. xxxxx

¶43

d. appoint in the service of the Board, the wife / husband or children of the employee of the Board who dies in harness rendering the entire family a destitute and without a wage

¶44

¶45

earner, in relaxation of the normal

¶46

procedure of recruitment.”

¶47

In terms of the afore-extracted Regulation which vests

¶48

power with the Corporation to relax the rigor of the Regulations in certain circumstances and this is exercised by the BESCOM in the aforesaid two cases. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in terms of the representation dated 27.02.2017.

¶49

For the aforesaid reasons, the following order is passed:

¶50

a. The writ petition is allowed.

¶51

b. The endorsement dated 17.10.2017 -

¶52

Annexure ‘M’ is set aside.

¶53

¶54

c. The matter is remitted back to the

¶55

respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in the light of the observations made hereinabove.

¶56

d. It is made clear that the entitlement of the petitioner for an appointment is not decided by this Court.

¶57

e. Learned counsel for the respondents shall comply with the order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

nvj CT:MJ

Smt Manjula v. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Manjula v. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

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

S Somalingaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. N. Krishna Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Rekha Vs the Director

Sri B K Hampagol Vs the Commissioner

M/S H M Towers Private Limited Vs the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Sri Kulla Nayak H B Vs State of Karnataka