Allowed

Sidramesh S/O Gundappa Magund v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Sept 2023WA/100294/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the writ appeal, setting aside the Single Judge's dismissal of a compassionate appointment claim. The court directed respondents to reconsider the appellant's eligibility under Rule 22 of the 2022 Rules, aligning with a precedent set in W.P. No.20489/2021, ensuring his case is evaluated despite existing notifications for fresh appointments.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 17.01.2023 set aside. Respondents directed to reconsider appellant's case for compassionate appointment under Rule 22 of 2022 Rules within 3 months.

Sidramesh S/O Gundappa Magund Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10018-DB WA No. 100294 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NO. 100294 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SIDRAMESH S/O. GUNDAPPA MAGUND AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: LIBRARY SUPERVISOR, G.P. LIBRARY, CHULAKI, R/O: MAGUND ONI, CHULAKI, TQ: SAVADATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591110.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

K M SOMASHEKAR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH 2023.09.27 11:08:04 +0530

¶14

(BY SRI. S.S.YADRAMI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. GIRISH V.BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND PANCHAYAT RAJ, 3^RD FLOOR, MS BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶17

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYAT, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10018-DB WA No. 100294 of 2023

¶20

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYAT, SAVADATTI TALUK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591126.

¶21

THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER CHULAKI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: SAVADATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591110.

¶22

THE CHIEF LIBRARIAN DISTRICT CENTRAL LIBRARY, VG86+FX5, KHADE BAZAR, RAVIWAR PETH, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI.G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADV. FOR R1 AND R5; SRI.V.SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R2 TO R4)

¶25

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WP NO.100705/2022 (S-RES) (COMMON ORDER IN CONNECTED MATTERS) DATED 17.01.2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.G.KE.GRAMBE/GRA.PAM .GRAN/ME.AA/2021-22 DATED 14.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT CALLING THE APPLICATION FOR THE POST OF LIBRARY SUPERVISOR UNDER CHULAKI GRAM PANCHAYAT VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION AND GRANT SUCH OTHER ORDERS AND RELIEFS DEEMED FIT AND PROPER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶26

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10018-DB WA No. 100294 of 2023

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

This intra-court appeal by the writ petitioner in W.P.No.100705/2022 is directed against the impugned order dated 17.01.2023 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the said petition preferred by the appellant-writ petitioner seeking compassionate appointment as a Library Supervisor.

¶30

Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents-State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 to 4.

¶31

The material on record discloses that the

¶32

petitioner’s father viz., Gundappa Magund, who was working as a Library Supervisor with respondent No.4, expired on 09.02.2019 pursuant to which respondent No.4-

¶33

Gram Panchayat permitted the appellant-writ petitioner to work as a Library Supervisor in his place .

¶34

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10018-DB WA No. 100294 of 2023

¶35

Subsequently, on 14.1.2022, respondent No.5

¶36

issued a notification calling for applications for the post of Library Supervisor. At that time, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. No.100705/2022 and contended that since he was entitled to compassionate appointment and was already working, his services deserved to be continued and notification deserved to be quashed. The said petition having been opposed by the respondents, the learned Single Judge proceeded to pass impugned order dismissing the petition, aggrieved by which the appellant-writ petitioner is before this Court by way of the present appeal.

¶37

In addition to reiterating various contentions urged in the appeal and referring to the material on record, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant invited our attention to a judgment of this Court in the case of Chetana Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others (W.P. No.20489/2021 disposed of on 24.11.2022), whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of the said petition issuing necessary directions to the respondents to consider

¶38

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10018-DB WA No. 100294 of 2023

¶39

the claim of the writ petitioner, who was also a Library Supervisor, for compassionate appointment in the light of Rule 22 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Grama Panchayat Library and Information Center Supervisor Services) Rules, 2022 (for short “the Rules”). In the said order, this Court has held as under:

¶40

“The petitioner, wife of one Late Prabhakar who was working as Library Supervisor in the Rajagondanahalli Panchayat is before this Court, praying to quash the endorsement at Annexure-A bearing No. f.PÉÃ.UÀæA.zÁ/UÁæ.¥ÀA.UÀæA/ªÉÄÃ.£ÉÃ./ 192/2021-22 dated 12.10.2021 and Annexure-B bearing No. No. fPÉÃUÀæAzÁ/UÁæ.¥ÀA.UÀæA/ªÉÄÃ°é/C£ÀÄPÀA¥À /272/2020-21

¶41

date.15.12.2020 wherein the petitioner was informed that there is no provision for compassionate appointment in Grama Panchayats.

¶42

2. Heard learned counsel Sri.G.V.Bhat for petitioner, learned Principal Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 5 and Sri.J.M.Anil Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos2 to 4. Perused the writ petition papers.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10018-DB WA No. 100294 of 2023

¶45

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the husband of the petitioner Sri.Prabhakar was working as Library Supervisor from 30.06.1999 in the respondent- Panchayath and he died while working as such on 02.03.2020. It is submitted that subsequent to death of husband of the petitioner, the petitioner is said to have submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment. Petitioner’s request was rejected under communication at Annexure-B dated 15.12.2020. Under Annexure-A dated 12.10.2021, public notice is issued inviting applications to appoint Library Supervisor to Rajagondanahalli Grama Panchayat. Learned counsel would contend that earlier there was no provision for compassionate appointments in the Panchayats, but by notification dated 14.11.2022, placed on record along with memo dated 24.11.2022, the Government has made provision for compassionate appointment in the Grama Panchayats. Learned counsel inviting attention of this Court to Rule 22 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Grama Panchayat Library and Information Center Supervisor Services) Rules 2022 (for short “2022 Rules”) submits that the petitioner would be entitled for

¶46

¶47

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10018-DB WA No. 100294 of 2023

¶48

consideration of her case in terms of the said Rules.

¶49

4. Learned Principal Government Advocate would submit that the above 2022 Rules has come into effect from 22^nd November 2022 laying down certain service conditions for Librarians or Information Supervisors of the Grama Panchayats. Rules 22 provides for compassionate appointment. Thus, he prays for passing appropriate order in the matter.

¶50

5. Annexure-C/O.M. dated 30.06.1999 discloses that husband of the petitioner Late Prabhakar was appointed as Library Supervisor on payment of Honorarium by the Chief Librarian, District Central Library, Shivamogga. He was continued as Library Supervisor from time to time. The husband of the petitioner died while working as Library Supervisor on 02.03.2020 which is evidenced by death certificate at Annexure-D. The petitioner’s application for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on the ground that there is no provision for appointment on compassionate ground in the Panchayats. It is submitted by the learned Principal Government

¶51

¶52

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10018-DB WA No. 100294 of 2023

¶53

Advocate that the Government has framed 2022 Rules.

¶54

6. Rule 22 of 2022 Rules reads as follows:

¶55

22. C£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ°è £ÉÃªÀÄPÁw. – (1) ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ°ègÀÄªÁUÀ¯ÉÃ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw UÀæAxÁ®AiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ»w PÉÃAzÀæ ªÉÄÃ°éZÁgÀPÀgÀÄ CPÁ°PÀ ªÀÄgÀtPÉÌ vÀÄvÁÛzÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è ªÀÄÈvÀ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw UÀÈAxÁ®AiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ»w PÉÃAzÀæ ªÉÄÃ°éZÁgÀPÀ£À CªÀ®A©vÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÄA¢£À µÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ½UÉÆ¼À¥ÀlÄÖ ªÉÄÃ°éZÁgÀPÀgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ C£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀ £ÉÃªÀÄPÁwUÉ CºÀðgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¶56

(2) UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw UÀæAxÁ®AiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ»w PÉÃAzÀæzÀ ªÉÄÃ°éZÁgÀPÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀgÁzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ MAzÀÄ ªÀµÀðzÉÆ¼ÀUÁV CºÀð ªÀåQÛAiÀÄÄ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw C©üªÀÈ¢Ý C¢üPÁjUÉ CUÀvÀåªÁzÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸À°è¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw C©üªÀÈ¢Ý C¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÁAiÀÄÈ¤ªÁðºÀPÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ DAiÉÄÌ ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ ¸ÀzÀ¸Àå PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðAiÀÄªÀjUÉ ¸À°è¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ:

¶57

¥ÀgÀAvÀÄ, C£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ £ÉÃªÀÄPÁwUÉ ¦.AiÀÄÄ.¹ AiÀÄÄ PÀ¤µÀ× CºÀðvÉAiÀiÁVgÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.

¶58

The above rule provides for consideration of dependants of the deceased employees working as Librarian and Library Supervisors for compassionate appointment. In view of the above rule, the respondents are required to reconsider the case of the petitioner. Therefore, without reference to Annexures-A and B, respondents to

¶59

¶60

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10018-DB WA No. 100294 of 2023

¶61

consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in accordance with 2022 Rules. Hence, the following order:

¶62

(a) Respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5 are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in the light of Rule 22 of 2022 Rules and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶63

(b) The petitioner shall submit a representation enclosing copy of this order along with necessary documents and marks cards to respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5, within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶64

With the above, the writ petition stands

¶65

disposed of.”

¶66

It is submitted that the appellant herein is also identically situated and would be entitled to seek necessary directions against the respondents for consideration of his claim for compassionate appointment in the light of the

¶67

10 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10018-DB WA No. 100294 of 2023

¶68

aforesaid Rule 22 of the Rules within a stipulated time frame.

¶69

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that, appellant herein is similarly/identically situated to that of the petitioner in W.P. No.20489/2021. In this context, a perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge will indicate that the judgment of this Court in W.P. No.20489/2021 has not been considered by the learned Single Judge before passing the impugned order which has resulted in erroneous conclusion. Under these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge being contrary to the material on record, we are of the view that the same deserves to be set aside and necessary directions be issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the appellant-writ petitioner for compassionate appointment within the stipulated time frame.

¶70

In the result, we pass the following:

¶71

11 -

¶72

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10018-DB WA No. 100294 of 2023

¶73

ORDER

¶74

i) The appeal is hereby allowed.

¶75

ii) The impugned order dated 17.01.2023 passed in W.P. No.100705/2022 is hereby set aside.

¶76

iii) Respondents No.2, 4 and 5 are directed to reconsider the case of the appellant-writ petitioner for compassionate appointment in the light of Rule 22 of the Rules and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶77

iv) The appellant-writ petitioner shall submit a representation enclosing copy of this order along with necessary documents and marks cards to respondents No.2, 4 and 5 within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Sd JUDGE

Sd JUDGE

KMS

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0

Sidramesh S/O Gundappa Magund v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sidramesh S/O Gundappa Magund v. the State of Karnataka

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 Yallawwa Pavadappa Hullannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Basavaraj S/O. Marigeppa Bembalgi Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Smt.Vidya D/O Ramachandra Shetty Vs Sri.Nagaraj Bin Mahabaleshwar Shetty

Shri Arjun S/O. Mahadev Yelapale Vs Shri Babasaqheb S/O. Jingonda Patil

Praveen S/O Halappa Lambi Vs the State of Karnataka

Karthik S/O. Shivanad Pujari Vs the State of Karnataka