Dismissed

Miss Radhika v. the Officer Commanding

Karnataka HC2 Mar 2021WP/42693/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an application for compassionate appointment by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Court held that no vested right exists for compassionate appointment, which is an exception to recruitment for immediate family solace and cannot be claimed after the deceased, who had previously retired on medical grounds, had

What did the court decide?

Writ petition stands dismissed with no relief granted to the petitioner.

Miss Radhika Vs the Officer Commanding — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI

¶7

W.P.No.42693/2016 (S – CAT)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

MISS.RADHIKA D/O SMT.[LATE] MUTHULAKSHMI AGED 30 YEARS, R/AT: I MAIN ROAD III STAGE, I CROSS, DR.AMBEDKAR NAGAR VIVEK NAGAR POST, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560 057. ...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI RANGANATHAN.P.S., ADV.)

¶11

AND :

¶12

THE OFFICER COMMANDING STATION HEALTH ORGANIZATION, AGARAM POST, BANGALORE.

¶13

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF MEDICAL SERVICES (ARMY), ADJACENT GENERAL BRANCH, L BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001

¶14

UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (SOUTH BLOCK), NEW DELHI-110 001. …RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT K.S.ANASUYADEVI, CGC.)

¶16

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS LEADING TO THE ORDER DATED 08.11.2012; QUASH ORDER DATED 08.11.2012 VIDE ANNEX PASSED BY THE LEARNED CENTRAL ADMINISRATIVE Tribunal BY ISSUE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OR CERTIORARI AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS FLOWING FROM QUASHING OF THE SAID ORDER INCLUDING DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION DATED 09.08.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R-2 PRAYING FOR A COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT PRODUCED AT ANNEX.

¶18

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J ., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner has called in question the correctness and legality of the order dated 08.11.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru ['Tribunal' for short] in O.A.No.447/2011 whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner claiming compassionate appointment on the death of her mother Smt.Muthulakshmi on 06.05.2010.

¶21

The undisputed facts are that the mother of

¶22

the petitioner, Smt.Muthulakshmi was appointed on compassionate grounds on 31.01.1983 due to the death

¶23

¶24

of her husband while in service with the respondent

¶25

No.1 as Mazdoor at Defence Services. The mother

¶26

of the petitioner has sought for voluntary retirement on the medical grounds, which was initially rejected and subsequently the same was allowed with effect from 30.12.2009. Thereafter she sought for an employment for her son Sri.Anbu on compassionate grounds which was rejected as she had opted for voluntary retirement on medical grounds after attaining the age of 57 years. After the death of the mother of the petitioner during May-2010, the petitioner again sought for compassionate appointment.

¶27

It is well settled that the compassionate

¶28

appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Moreover, it is not by succession. As could be seen from the records, the rejection of the request by the mother of

¶29

¶30

the petitioner to provide compassionate appointment to

¶31

her son has become final.

¶32

The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of

¶33

decisions has held that the compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis caused by the death of the employee who had left the family without means of livelihood. It is trite that an employment in the Government should be open to all eligible candidates. The appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment but merely an exception to the recruitment to provide an immediate solace to the family on the sudden death of the Government servant who die

¶34

in harness leaving his family in penury. The said compassionate appointment cannot be offered after the crisis is over. This view is fortified by the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State

¶35

of State of Himachal Pradesh V/s. Shashi Kumar

¶36

¶37

[(2019) 3 SCC 653] reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex

¶38

Court in the case of N.C.Santhosh V/s. State of Karnataka and Others [Civil Appeal

¶39

Nos.9280/9281/2014, D.D. 04.03.2020] .

¶40

The petitioner has no vested right to claim compassionate appointment and the Rules do not provide for the same. The Tribunal considering these vital aspects has rightly dismissed the application which does not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶41

Writ petition is devoid of merits, accordingly stands dismissed.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

NC.

Miss Radhika v. the Officer Commanding

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Miss Radhika v. the Officer Commanding

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

Smt R Hemalatha Vs State of Karnataka

The Principal Secretary Vs K Ramu

Sri. D.v.Govinda Swamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Pramila Cheriath Vs the State of Karnataka