Dismissed

The Special Officer v. Smt Shanthamma

Karnataka HC2 Mar 2023WP/14806/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an order by the Karnataka State Commission for Safai Karmacharis directing a government department to pay compensation. The court held that there was no substantial challenge to the facts and dismissed the plea regarding leave or employment nature.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; Impugned order dated 05.05.2017 stands upheld.

The Special Officer Vs Smt Shanthamma — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No.14806 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO.14806 OF 2018 (GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

THE SPECIAL OFFICER, HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT, KRISHNA RAJENDRA GIRIDHAMA, CHIKKAMAGALURU.

¶7

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.

¶8

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. V. SHIVAREDDY, HCGP)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by GURURAJ D Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SMT. SHANTHAMMA, W/O LATE NARASIMHA, SWEEPERS COLONY, SHANKARAPURA, CHIKKAMAGALURU.

¶14

KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR SAFAI KARMACHARIS, REPT. KBY ITS SECRETARY, 4TH MAIN ROAD, 16TH CROSS, S.R.NAGAR, BANGALORE - 27.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI M. MADHUSUDHAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI V. VISWANATH SETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 - NOTICE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

¶18

WP No.14806 of 2018

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR SAFAI KARMACHARIS, BENGALURU IN REF.NO.93/2016, QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05.05.2017 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR SAFAI KARMACHARIS, BENGALURU IN REF.NO.93/2016 AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Challenging order dated 05.05.2017 passed by Karnataka

¶23

State Commission for Safai Karmacharis, Bengaluru, in Ref.no.93/2016 (Annexure-A), this writ petition is filed by State.

¶24

2. Sri V. Shivareddy, learned High Court Government

¶25

Pleader for petitioner submitted that Sri Narasimha was a daily wage worker in Horticulture Department, Krishna Rajendra Hill Station, Kemmannugundi. He had applied for leave on 25.04.2016 and 26.04.2016 on ground of ill-health, vide leave letter dated 25.04.2016 (Annexure-B2). Sanction of leave was also reflected in attendance register for month of April, 2016 vide Annexure-B3.

¶26

¶27

WP No.14806 of 2018

¶28

Petitioner no.1 received report on 27.04.2016 vide

¶29

Annexure-B4 discloses that Narasimha's son informed death of his father at his residence on 26.04.2016 at 8:30 p.m. due to heart attack.

¶30

It was further submitted that even as per spot mahazar drawn on 13.04.2017 by petitioner no.1, wherein statement of Smt.Shantamma wife of deceased Narasimha was recorded. It reveals that deceased had applied for leave on 25.04.2016 and 26.04.2016. On 26.04.2016, he was informed that a manhole near Ram Temple had blocked and requested to clear it. Narasimha went there to clear blockage. Thereafter, one Shivamma (mother-in-law of her son) informed through phone `that Narasimha fell down due to giddiness. Immediately, she went there and took Narasimha home. At 6.30 p.m., he complained of chest pain and was taken to hospital at Chikmagaluru, where he was declared dead.

¶31

Mahazar further reveals that on enquiry with other daily wage workers at Krishna Rajendra Hill Station, Narasimha was mainly employed for sweeping, planting, watering, pruning and other gardening work and further that since past 15 years, maintenance work of all guest houses was outsourced and none

¶32

¶33

WP No.14806 of 2018

¶34

of workers were asked to carryout cleaning/maintenance work.

¶35

It was also recorded that during 1992, when septic chamber was blocked earlier, it was cleared once or twice in a year by wearing gloves and using stick even size of manhole was only 1¹ /2 X 2 ft.. But, after maintenance work was outsourced, such work was not done by any daily wage worker.

¶36

However, a UDR case was registered on 27.04.2016 at 12:30 p.m., as per statement of Smt.Shantamma, that her husband - Narasimha was working as 'D' Group employee since year 2012-13 and used to clean Kemmannugundi bus stand, bathrooms, latrines in guest house rooms etc. He cleared manually septic tank occasionally. On 25.04.2016, at 9:00 a.m., he received call that a manual pit was blocked and while clearing it, he suffered chest pain and fell down. Immediately, she went there and took him to Government Hospital at Chikkamagaluru between 7 to 8 p.m. But, doctors declared that he had died due to heart attack.

¶37

It was submitted that without properly considering objections and records produced by petitioner no.1, only based on UDR and statement of applicant, proceeded to pass impugned order directing petitioner no.1 to pay compensation

¶38

¶39

WP No.14806 of 2018

¶40

of Rs.10,00,000/- as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was submitted that impugned order being contrary to material on record is liable to be quashed. It was submitted that as on date of alleged incident, he was on leave. Even otherwise, he was never assigned work of cleaning or maintaining manholes, but was purely employed for gardening work. As such, he was protected under provisions of Karnataka Daily Wage Employee's Welfare Act, 2012 and therefore, could not invoke benefit of Karnataka State Commission for Safai Karmacharis Act, 2012.

¶41

It was submitted that as deceased Narasimha was not employed as Safai karmachari, benefit of said Act could not be extended. It was also contended that as per Annexure-E9 - PM report, death was due to myocardial infarction (heart attack), which could not be attributed to work. On above grounds, sought for quashing of impugned order.

¶42

On other hand, Sri M Madhusudhan, advocate for Sri V. Vishwanath Setty, learned counsel for respondent no.1 - applicant, however sought to support impugned order. It was submitted that entire basis for opposing applicant's claim was defective and concocted. Alleged leave letter at Annexure-B2 would be highly suspicious, as it was not written by Narasimha.

¶43

¶44

WP No.14806 of 2018

¶45

It was further submitted that attendance register - AnnexureB3 indicates number of working days of Narasimha as 25, which would be contrary to claim of petitioners that Narasimha was sanctioned casual leave for two days i.e. on 25^th and 26^th of April, 2016. It was submitted that to avoid liability leave letter appears to have been created subsequently. Petitioners have not questioned UDR. Mahazar - Annexure-E3 was drawn on 13.04.2017 i.e. one year after incident and therefore, rightly ignored by Commission. It was submitted that Commission after detailed examination of records rightly directed petitioners to pay compensation and same did not call for interference.

¶46

Heard learned counsel, perused impugned order and record.

¶47

As stated above, main ground on which impugned order challenged is that deceased Narasimha as on date of incident and death was on leave, therefore not entitled for compensation. It is also contended that neither deceased was employed nor engaged to do manual scavenging work, as it was outsourced.

¶48

¶49

WP No.14806 of 2018

¶50

On careful perusal of Annexure-B3 - attendance register, against entry no.10 in respect of Narasimha, number of days casual leave was indicated as 'nil'. At end, it is stated that he had worked for 25 days. But, there is marking of C.L. on 25^th and 26^th of April, 2016, in which case, he could not have worked for 25 days. Contradictory entries would belie case of petitioners. Though, it is claimed that Annexure-B2 -

¶51

leave letter was written by deceased Narasimha in his own handwriting, there is no material to substantiate same. Further, reliance sought to be placed on Annexure-E3 - Mahazar would be misconceived, as it was drawn on 13.04.2017 much after 19.05.2016 i.e. date of submission of application for compensation by applicant. Annexure-E7 - UDR would corroborate case of applicant. Fact that same is not challenged would also come in aid of applicant.

¶52

Admittedly, on due enquiry impugned order is passed by Commission. Unless same is established to be totally contradictory to evidence or without any evidence, there cannot be interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction. As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of West Bengal Central School Service Commission and Ors. v/s Abdul

¶53

¶54

WP No.14806 of 2018

¶55

Halim and Ors. , reported in 2019 (18) SCC 39 , writ Court would not interfere with a plausible or possible view of authorities. It is settled law that only process of decision making can be interfered with and not decision itself.

¶56

There is no substantial challenge to fact that death of deceased Narasimha was on account of doing manual scavenging work. Since compensation awarded is in terms of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Safai Karamachari Andolan and Ors. v/s Union of India and Ors. , reported in 2014 (11) SCC 224 , I do not see any good ground to interfere.

¶57

Hence, writ petition is dismissed.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

GRD

The Special Officer v. Smt Shanthamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Special Officer v. Smt Shanthamma

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

Ms C Uma Chandrashekar @ Uma Vs the Karnataka Bank Ltd.

M/S. Vacuum Systems & Products Vs Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board

Sri Muniyappa Vs M Narayanaswamy

Sri Clement G Hebick Vs the Tribunal of Maintenance &

P R Sukumar Vs State Bank of India

M G Parameshwarappa Vs Malleshappa