Dismissed

Sri Nikhil P v. the Registrar General

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2024WA/52/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal against dismissal of writ petition seeking compassionate appointment. Court held that amended Rules, 1996 apply to determine eligibility and are not retrospective. Appeal dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Nikhil P Vs the Registrar General — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:18693-DB WA No. 52 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO. 52 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI NIKHIL P S/O LATE S PRAKASH AGED 26 YEARS No.277, 2^ND CROSS 2^nd BLOCK, 3^RD PHASE BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE BENGALURU – 560 085

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. AJIT KALYAN, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DR AMBEDKAR ROAD

¶15

BENGALURU – 560 001

¶16

THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU – 560 009

¶17

REP BY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. SHREEDHAR G. BIDRE ADVOCATE FOR; SRI. RAGHAVEENDRA G. GAYATHRI ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶20

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26/07/2023 PASSED ON WP NO.25215/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT.

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC:18693-DB WA No. 52 of 2024

¶23

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMNARY HEARING, THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Heard learned advocate Mr.Ajith Kalyan for the appellant and learned advocate Mr.G.Shreedhar Bidre for learned advocate Mr.G.Raghavendra Gayathri for the respondents.

¶26

In view of the request and consent of both the parties represented by respective learned advocates, the main writ appeal itself was considered on merits.

¶27

The present appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, is directed against judgment and order dated 26.07.2023 of learned Single Judge, whereby Writ Petition No.25215 of 2022 was dismissed.

¶28

The appellant-original petitioner in the writ petition prayed to set aside the endorsement dated 02.11.2018 issued by respondent No.1Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, as well as the order dated 07.11.2018 of learned Principal District and Sessions Judgerespondent No.2, whereby compassionate appointment to the petitioner was denied.

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:18693-DB WA No. 52 of 2024

¶30

For denying the compassionate appointment, the ground weighed with learned Single Judge was that the mother of the petitioner was an employee serving under the establishment of High Court of Karnataka whose annual Income was Rs.7,20,288/- and his father was working as Bailiff who died on 22.12.2016. It was an eminently justified view taken by learned Single Judge that since his mother was in service, the petitioner could not be considered eligible to be offered compassionate appointment.

¶31

5.1 The authorities relied on Rule 4(1) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1996 Rules’) to pass the order denying the benefit of compassionate appointment. The said Rule came into force with effect from 09.04.2021.

¶32

It was sought to be canvassed in vain on behalf of the appellant/petitioner that when the employee died and the appellant/petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, the said Rule was not enacted. Therefore, it could not have been applied and that the Rules prevalent at the time of death of the employee on the

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:18693-DB WA No. 52 of 2024

¶34

date of making of the application would have to apply to treat the appellant/petitioner entitled to compassionate appointment.

¶35

The contention that consideration of the case of the petitioner as per the amended Rules would amount to applying the Rules retrospectively, is of no substance in law and it runs contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Punjab University vs. Subash Chander and another, (AIR 1984 SC 1415). It was a case regarding applying the Punjab University Regulation in relation to percentage of marks as grace marks to the candidate appearing for the University examination in the year 1965. The candidate had joined the MBBS course in 1965 to appear for final MBBS examination in the year 1974. In the meantime, new Regulations of 1970 came into force which amended the Rule by reducing the percentage of grace marks for MBBS candidates. It was held that the question of actually applying the Regulation, the one which was in force at that time, would become applicable and not the unamended Regulation when the candidate had joined the course. It was held that giving of grace marks to the candidate would be as per 1970 Regulation.

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:18693-DB WA No. 52 of 2024

¶37

7.1 The above principle would apply to the facts of the present case analogically. It could not be said that applying the amended Rule would amount to retrospective application. The Supreme Court in Punjab University ( supra) observed that by virtue of amended Regulation as regards grace marks was to be applied and the declaration that had failed by applying the amended grace marks was not invalid. It was observed that “there was no element of retrospectively in the change brought about by the amendment. It cannot be said to be retrospective in operation merely because though introduced in 1970, it was applied to the candidate, who appeared for final examination in 1974, after he had joined the course earlier in 1965”.

¶38

The law in respect of compassionate appointment is laid down by Supreme Court in N.C. Santhosh Vs. State of Karnataka and Others [(2020)7 SCC 617] , wherein it was held that the 1996 Rules prevalent on the date of consideration of the application of the petitioner would apply and would determine the eligibility for granting or denying the benefit.

¶39

Learned Single Judge has taken into account the law laid down

¶40

in State of Maharashtra and another vs. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:18693-DB WA No. 52 of 2024

¶43

(AIR 2022 SC 5196) in paragraph No.6 and further relied on the decision of N.C Santhosh (s upra ) to hold against the petitioner

¶44

As held by the Supreme Court in Punjab University ( supra ), the application of Rule 4(1) could not be said to be retrospective and the question of consideration of the application of the appellant/petitioner does not arise since the 1996 Rules was in force which would apply to determine the eligibility of the appellant/petitioner.

¶45