Dismissed

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

Karnataka HC2 Aug 2023WP/106844/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of 2002 rejection of compassionate appointment claim for his deceased father's widow/successors. Court rejected petition as 22-year lapse and prolonged inaction precluded reliance due to family's survival over the period.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing of endorsement dated 20.12.2002 and consideration of application was rejected.

Iranna S/O. Late Rangappa Jangawad, Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8101 WP No. 106844 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2023 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 106844 OF 2019 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

IRANNA S/O. LATE RANGAPPA JANGAWAD, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: NEERALAKERI VILLAGE, TQ. & DIST: BAGALAKOTE.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. LINGARAJ MARADI, ADV. FOR SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, HESCOM CORPORATE OFFICE, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI.

¶13

VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI

¶14

Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI

¶15

Date: 2023.09.11 15:57:02 +0530

¶16

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELE.), O & M CIRCLE, HESCOM, K.K. COLONY, MEGHA BUILDING, VIJAYAPUR.

¶17

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE.), O & M DIVISION, HESCOM, BAGALAKOTE.

¶18

(BY SRI. B S KAMATE, ADV. FOR RF1-R3)

¶19

… RESPONDENTS

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICELS 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. KRA. SUM : BJP: AA(V) : ULINI : SALI :HISA :1462022 DATED 20.12.2002 ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-C WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITIONER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE & ETC.

¶21

¶22

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8101 WP No. 106844 of 2019

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The Petitioner is before this Court calling in

¶26

question an endorsement dated 20.12.2002 by which the appointment on Compassionate Ground came to be rejected.

¶27

Heard Sri.Lingaraj Maradi, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri.B.S.Kamate, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶28

Facts in brief germane are as follows:

¶29

The father of the petitioner was an employee of Hubli Electricity Supply Company Limited (HESCOM for short). The father of the petitioner was working as a laiman he dies in harness on 25.2.2001. It transpires that the father of the petitioner during his life time had two wives, the first wife had a daughter and the 2^nd wife had one son and five daughters. On the death of Rangappa, the mother of the petitioner submits an application seeking appointment on Compassionate Grounds. The

¶30

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8101 WP No. 106844 of 2019

¶31

appointment was not sought for the mother, but for the petitioner. An endorsement comes to be issued rejecting the claim of the petitioner on 20.12.2002 on the score that an appointment cannot be considered to the petitioner, who was the son of the 2^nd wife. Notwithdrawing the rejection of the claim, the petitioner keeps quite, not for a short period, but for 16 long years, then wakes up and submits another representation in the year 2018, contending that his claim has not met its consideration. He is now before this Court in the subject petition. It is therefore, he calls in question the endorsement dated 20.12.2002, 17 years after its passage and seeks to consider an application which is submitted 18 years before filing the present petition.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would seek to contend that the right of the petitioner for consideration of appointment on Compassionate Ground is a continuing cause of action. Since, it is not been considered, even today, he can maintain the writ petition.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8101 WP No. 106844 of 2019

¶35

Therefore, seeks quashment of the endorsement and consideration of his application for compassionate

¶36

appointment.

¶37

On the other hand, learned counsel

¶38

Sri.B.S.Kamate would submit that it is 22 years today that his father had passed away and at this juncture this Court could not event direct consideration of the application. He would seek dismissal of the petition.

¶39

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

¶40

The aforenarrated facts are not in dispute. Three dates that would assume significance, is the date of death of the employee- 25.2.2001; the date of application for Compassionate appointment-4.12.2001; the date of its rejection-20.12.2002. For the first time, after 16 years a representation is submitted on 26.9.20018 and the writ petition is preferred in the year 2019. The petition is being

¶41

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8101 WP No. 106844 of 2019

¶42

considered in 2023. Therefore, 22 years have passed by after death of sole bread winner and the representation itself after the initial rejection is submitted after 16 years. If the family could survive for 22 long years without the support of the bread winner of the family, the need for compassionate appointment has therefore vanished. Reference being made to the judgment of apex Court in the case of State of State of J and K and others V/s. Sajad Ahmed Mir, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 766 becomes apposite. The Apex Court has held as follows.

¶43

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the appeal should be allowed. Certain facts are not in dispute. The father of the applicant who was in service, died in harness in March 1987 and for the first time, the application was made by the applicant after more than four years i.e. in September 1991. The family thus survived for more than four years after the death of the applicant's father. Even at that time, the applicant, under the relevant guidelines, could not have been appointed and hence relaxation was prayed. It is no doubt true that the case of the applicant was favourably considered by the departments and recommendation was made, but it is also a fact which has come on record that in March 1996, a decision was taken by the authorities not to

¶44

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8101 WP No. 106844 of 2019

¶45

give appointment to the applicant on compassionate ground. From the affidavit-in-reply filed by the authorities in the High Court as also from the finding of the learned Single Judge, it is clear that the applicant had knowledge about rejection of his application in 1996 itself. Nothing was done by the applicant against the said decision. Considerable period elapsed and only in 1999, when there was some inter-departmental communication and the Administrative Officer informed the Chief Engineer vide a letter dated 8-6-1999 that the applicant could not be appointed on compassionate ground that the applicant woke up and filed a writ petition in the High Court. It is also pertinent to note that the letter of 1999 itself recites that the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment was considered and the prayer had already been turned down by the Administrative Department and the said fact had been communicated to the office of the Chief Engineer. A copy of the said letter was also annexed to the letter of 1999. In our opinion, therefore, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the petition on the ground of delay and laches by holding that the applicant had not done anything for a considerable period after March 1996 when his claim was rejected even though he was informed about the decision and was very much aware of it. The Division Bench, in our view, was not justified in setting aside the said order and in directing the authorities to consider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment and by giving directions to give other benefits.

¶46

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8101 WP No. 106844 of 2019

¶47

11. We may also observe that when the Division Bench of the High Court was considering the case of the applicant holding that he had sought “compassion”, the Bench ought to have considered the larger issue as well and it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment in the Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole breadwinner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say “goodbye” to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.

¶48

12. In State of Haryana v. Rani Devi [(1996) 5 SCC 308 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1162 : AIR 1996 SC 2445] it was held that the claim of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premise that he was dependent on the deceased employee. Strictly this claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution. However, such claim is considered reasonable as also allowable on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the

¶49

8 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8101 WP No. 106844 of 2019

¶50

family of the employee who had served the State and died while in service. That is why it is necessary for the authorities to frame rules, regulations or to issue such administrative instructions which can stand the test of Articles 14 and 16. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

¶51

13. In LIC of India v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar [(1994) 2 SCC 718 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 737 : (1994) 27 ATC 174] it was indicated that the High Courts and the Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointments on compassionate grounds when the regulations framed in respect thereof do not cover and contemplate such appointments.

¶52

14. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930 : (1994) 27 ATC 537] it was ruled that public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and on merits. The appointment on compassionate ground cannot be a source of recruitment. It is merely an exception to the requirement of law keeping in view the fact of the death of the employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases, the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis. Such appointments on compassionate ground, therefore, have to be made in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the

¶53

9 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8101 WP No. 106844 of 2019

¶54

family of the deceased. This favourable treatment to the dependant of the deceased employee must have clear nexus with the object sought to be achieved thereby i.e. relief against destitution. At the same time, however, it should not be forgotten that as against the destitute family of the deceased, there are millions and millions of other families which are equally, if not more, destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectation, and the change in the status and affairs of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment, which are suddenly upturned.

¶55

15. In Sushma Gosain v. Union of India [(1989) 4 SCC 468 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 662 : (1989) 11 ATC 878] it was observed that in the claims of appointment on compassionate grounds, there should be no delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to the death of the breadwinner in the family. Such appointments should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress.

¶56

16. Recently, in Commr. of Public Instructions v. K.R. Vishwanath [(2005) 7 SCC 206 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 927] , one of us (Pasayat, J.) had an occasion to consider the above decisions and the principles laid down therein have been reiterated.

¶57

17. In the case on hand, the father of the applicant died in March 1987. The application was made by the

¶58

10 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8101 WP No. 106844 of 2019

¶59

applicant after four-and-a-half years in September 1991 which was rejected in March 1996. The writ petition was filed in June 1999 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge in July 2000. When the Division Bench decided the matter, more than fifteen years had passed from the date of the death of the father of the applicant. The said fact was indeed a relevant and material fact which went to show that the family survived in spite of the death of the employee. Moreover, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge was also right in holding that though the order was passed in 1996, it was not challenged by the applicant immediately. He took chance of challenging the order in 1999 when there was inter-departmental communication in 1999. The Division Bench, in our view, hence ought not to have allowed the appeal.

¶60

The said judgment has been followed by the Apex court throughout. In the light of the facts obtaining in the case at hand and the judgment of the Apex Court (supra), finding no merit in the petition, the petition is rejected.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

Vb Ct:Bck

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Krishnaram Manaram Patel Vs the State of Karnataka

Adumkarim Rijvi Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Sohail S/O Mohammed Yusoof Vs State of Karnataka

Shri T M Vijayakumar Vs the State of Karnataka

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

Shri.Popat Vithoba Mane Vs the Dy. Commissioner