Allowed

Smt.Fakkirawwa W/O Santosh Goravanakolla v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC7 Dec 2022WP/146604/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition to quash a rejection order denying compassionate appointment to an adopted married daughter. Relying on precedents regarding gender equality, the court ruled that adopted daughters and married daughters must be treated equally for such appointments.

What did the court decide?

The impugned rejection communication was quashed, and the respondent was directed to reconsider the appointment proposal within two months treating the adopted daughter as a natural one.

Smt.Fakkirawwa W/O Santosh Goravanakolla… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 146604 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO.146604 OF 2020 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT.FAKKIRAWWA W/O SANTOSH GORAVANAKOLLA AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: AMBEDAKAR ONI SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591123.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. H.M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶12

THE CHIEF OFFICER SAUDNATTI, YALLAMMA MUNICIPALITY, SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591123.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 21.01.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER NO.BGM/DUDC-1/CR/138/2018-19/ 1215 VIDE ANNEXURE-C; A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS.

¶15

¶16

WP No. 146604 of 2020

¶17

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The mother of the petitioner, who was working as a Poura Karmika in the second respondent-municipality, died in harness on 29.03.2018. The petitioner, who is the adopted daughter of the deceased, submitted an application with the second respondent to provide employment on compassionate ground. The second respondent sent a proposal to the first respondent to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground. The first respondent by the impugned communication rejected the proposal stating that there is no provision for appointing a married and adopted daughter on compassionate grounds, against which the present petition is filed.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.100362/2022 has held that an adopted son would have to be treated equally as that of a natural son while considering an application for appointment on compassionate ground. Hence, he submits that the petitioner is entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds under the rules.

¶21

¶22

WP No. 146604 of 2020

¶23

On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-state submits that, in the absence of any provision, the request of the petitioner to appoint her on compassionate grounds has rightly been rejected by the first respondent and the same does not warrant any interference.

¶24

I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶25

The issue, whether an adopted son would have to be treated equally to that of a natural son was examined by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.100362/2022 disposed of on 04.11.2022. The Division Bench, at paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 has held as follows:

¶26

“13. Admittedly, the deceased left behind his wife and son and adopted son and a daughter who is mentally retarded and physically handicapped. It is in the background of those facts that the appointing authority would have to consider the application of compassionate appointment if indeed there is financial stringency or difficulty requiring compassionate appointment.

¶27

¶28

WP No. 146604 of 2020

¶29

14. Respondent Nos.2 and 4 in the present matter have sought to make a distinction between an adopted son and a natural son so as to deprive the adopted son of compassionate appointment. In the present case, the daughter being a natural daughter, would have been entitled to a compassionate appointment if not for her being mentally retarded as also physically handicapped. In such a situation, it is the adopted son who was so adopted by the deceased to take care of the family on account of the death of a natural-born son who has applied for a compassionate appointment.

¶30

15. In the above circumstances, we are therefore of the considered opinion that the application made by the adopted son for compassionate appointment is bonafide and is required to be considered in the background of the difficulties faced by the family. The distinction made between the adopted son and a natural son by respondent Nos.2 and 4 either on the basis of the existing Rules in our considered opinion would not have any impact or role to play in the matter, a son is a son or a daughter is a daughter, adopted or otherwise, if such a distinction is accepted then there would be no purpose served by adoption. Be that as it may, apparently taking into account that the same would violate Article 14 of the constitution, the said

¶31

¶32

WP No. 146604 of 2020

¶33

Rules have been amended so as to do away the artificial distinction.”

¶34

The issue, whether a married daughter is entitled

¶35

for compassionate appointment was examined by a co-ordinate bench of this court in W.P.No.17788 of 2018 disposed of on 15th December 2020, wherein at paragrpah 15.5, the co-ordinate bench has held has follows:

¶36

“15.5. The Rule that is called in question and has fallen for interpretation, without a shadow of a doubt is discriminatory as the words “unmarried” permeates through the entire fabric of Rule 2 and 3 as extracted hereinabove to deny appointment to a married daughter. If the Rule is left as it is, in view of my preceding analysis, would create a discrimination on the basis of gender. If the marital status of a son does not make any difference in law to his entitlement for seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, the marital status of a daughter should make no difference, as the married daughter does not cease to be a part of the family and law cannot make an assumption that married sons alone continue to be the part of the family. Therefore, the Rule which becomes violative of Articles 14, 15 on its interpretation will have to be struck down as unconstitutional as excluding the daughters purely on the basis of marriage will

¶37

¶38

WP No. 146604 of 2020

¶39

constitute an impermissible discrimination which is invidious and be violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. It should be remembered that “nature bestows so much on women; the law cannot bestow too little ”.

¶40

In view of the ratio enunciated by the Division Bench and the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioner, who is the married adopted daughter of the deceased employee is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. Hence, the impugned communication issued by the first respondent is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i) The petition is allowed. The impugned communication dated 21.01.2019 issued by the first respondent at Annexure-C is hereby quashed.

¶43

ii) The first respondent is hereby directed to reconsider the proposal dated 15/11/2018 sent by the second respondent and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶44

¶45

WP No. 146604 of 2020

¶46

iii) It is needless to state that respondent No.1 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as if the petitioner is natural born daughter without making any discrimination between adopted daughter and natural daughter.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

KMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39

Smt.Fakkirawwa W/O Santosh Goravanakolla v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Fakkirawwa W/O Santosh Goravanakolla v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yallappa S/O Malakappa Nayak Vs the Union of India

Lokangouda S/O Basangouda Puttangoudra Vs the State of Karnataka

Umesh S/O Laxman Ghali Vs State of Karnataka

Prema D/O Ramanna Vaddar, Vs the Deputy Commissioner

The Town Municipal Council, Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Saroja D/O Hanamanthgouda Timmangoudar Vs the State of Karnataka