Partly allowed

Shankaravv@ Uma W/O. Late Siddanagouda v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Aug 2023WP/104951/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking appointment on compassionate grounds and subsequent relief of terminal benefits for her husband who died in harness. The court rejected the appointment claim due to the petitioner's age but directed payment of terminal benefits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 4th Respondent to disburse terminal benefits within three months; appointment claim rejected due to age.

Shankaravv@ Uma W/O. Late Siddanagouda Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8102 WP No. 104951 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 104951 OF 2015 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SHANKARAVV @ UMA W/O. LATE SIDDANAGOUDA AYYANAGOUDA, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. GANGAVATHI, KOPPAL, NOW AT KALKERI, KUNDARAGI TALUK, DIST: GADAG.

¶10

… PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. S G KADADAKATTI, & SRI. LINGESH V KATTEMANI, ADVOCATES)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGETE EDUCATION, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDAKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU-560001, R/BY SECRETARY.

¶14

VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL

¶15

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL

¶16

Date: 2023.08.09 11:25:07 +0530

¶17

THE ADDL. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGETE EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR COLLEGETE EDUCATION, PALACE ROAD, BANGALURU.

¶18

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMN), DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL.

¶19

THE PRINCIPAL, TEGGINMATH ARTS & EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY’S COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, ILAHI COLONY, PRASHANT NAGAR, KOPPAL DISTRICT.

¶20

… RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. V S KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1-R3; R4 SERVED)

¶22

¶23

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8102 WP No. 104951 of 2015

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICELS 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A WRIT OR CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION / ORDER NO. KAA SHI EE/07/A NEE/BI. AD/2013-14/B ED DATED 25.10.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT, THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER FOR COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, PALACEJ ROAD, BANGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-M, BY ALLWOING THE WRIT PETITION & ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Petitioner is before this Court seeking the following

¶28

reliefs:

¶29

(i) A writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned Communication/ Order No. Kaa Shi Ee/07/A Nee/Bi. AD/2013-14/B ED dated. 25.10.2014 issued by the 2^nd respondent, the Additional Director, of collegiate Education, Office of Commissioner for collegiate Education, Palace Road, Bangaluru, vide-ANNEXURE-M, by allowing the writ petition in the ends of justice.

¶30

(ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds to the suitable post by allowing this writ petition in the ends of justice.

¶31

- 3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8102 WP No. 104951 of 2015

¶32

(iii) Issue any other Writ, order/s or Direction/s to consider her case and give suitable past as per her requisite qualification in the above case in the ends of justice and equity.

¶33

Husband of petitioner was appointed as watchman in the college run by 4^th respondent society. Husband of petitioner dies in harness on 27.2.2011. The petitioner immediately thereafter submit a representation seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The application was not considered. The petitioner approaches this Court in WP.No.75883/2013, which came to be allowed, directing respondents to consider the case of petitioner. Even then, appointment is not granted. The petitioner makes a fresh requisition on 11.11.2014, which comes to be turned down endorsement dated 25.10.2014, it is this that leads the petitioner before this Court in the subject petition.

¶34

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that need for compassionate appointment to the petitioner is subsisting even today. Therefore, the petitioner would seek direction for grant of an appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8102 WP No. 104951 of 2015

¶36

¶37

Learned HCGP on the other hand would contend that petitioner is 53 years old and now cannot be appointed by any means.

¶38

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.

¶39

The issue lies in narrow compass. The husband of petitioner joins the service on 24.12.1984. After rendering 25 years of service, dies in harness. It is later the petitioner submits a representation seeking appointment on compassionate ground. Though the authority did not consider the same and rejected it only in the year 2014. The reasons rendered for such rejection need not be looked into, in the light of fact that petitioner is now 53 years old and any direction being given, even to consider the case of petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds would be contrary to law. Therefore, claim of petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground stands rejected.

¶40

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that no terminal benefits are paid to petitioner, if that be so, 4^th respondent

¶41

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8102 WP No. 104951 of 2015

¶42

shall disburse all terminal benefits to which the petitioner is entitled, after due verification of the records, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, if not

already paid.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/JUDGE

Vb Ct:Bck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59

Shankaravv@ Uma W/O. Late Siddanagouda v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankaravv@ Uma W/O. Late Siddanagouda 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishnaram Manaram Patel Vs the State of Karnataka

Adumkarim Rijvi Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Sohail S/O Mohammed Yusoof Vs State of Karnataka

Iranna S/O. Late Rangappa Jangawad, Vs the Managing Director

Shri T M Vijayakumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Popat Vithoba Mane Vs the Dy. Commissioner