Dismissed

Smt. Jayamma v. Smt. Sindhuja. L. D.

Karnataka HC22 Aug 2024WA/846/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal challenging the impleadment of a maternal grandmother in a writ petition for compassionate appointment. The court held that a mother is not a statutory dependent under applicable rules and maintained that disputes over maintenance between family members must be adjudicated in separate civil proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; application for impleadment objectively dismissed; I.A. No. 2 of 2024 rejected.

Smt. Jayamma Vs Smt. Sindhuja. L. D. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:33796-DB WA No. 846 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

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

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶9

WRIT APPEAL No. 846 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SMT. JAYAMMA, W/O LATE A. K. RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT C/O RAMAPPA, ARSIKERE, HARAPPANAHALLI TALUK, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583125.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI SHREEDHAR G. BIDRE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAGHAVENDRA G. GAYATRI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

AND:

¶16

SMT. SINDHUJA. L. D., W/O LATE SRI ANNNAPPA A. R., AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT No.2367/10, C/O DURUGAPPA L. K., 3^RD MAIN, 1^ST CROSS, SARASWATHINAGAR ‘C’ BLOCK, JEEVANABHIMANAGAR, DAVANAGERE TALUK, DAVANAGERE-577005.

¶17

VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, (VTU), JNANASANGAMA,

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:33796-DB WA No. 846 of 2024

¶19

BELGAUM DISTRICT, BELGAUM-590018.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.02.2024 THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF WHICH CAME TO BE CORRECTED ON 18.03.2024 AND THE SAME CAME TO BE SCANNED ON 15.04.2024 PASSED IN WP No.23810/2023 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA

¶24

and

¶25

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND)

¶28

This appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act.

¶29

The appellant is not party in the writ petition. I.A.No.2 of 2024 is seeking leave to file appeal, challenging the order dated 07.02.2024 in Writ Petition No.23810 of 2023.

¶30

Heard learned advocate Mr. Shreedhar G. Bidre, for learned advocate Sri Raghavendra G. Gayatri for appellant.

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:33796-DB WA No. 846 of 2024

¶32

The brief facts are, late Annappa A.R., son of the appellant, husband of respondent No.1 was appointed as Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical in Visvesvaraya Technology University, Belgaum (VTU) - respondent No.2. Sri Annappa A.R., expired on 06.05.2022 on account of heart attack.

¶33

Respondent No.1, widow of late Annappa A.R., submitted representation dated 20.06.2022 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The appellant filed objections to the representation.

¶34

Respondent No.1 preferred Writ Petition No.23810 of 2023 seeking mandamus to consider the representation dated 20.06.2022. The appellant filed application in I.A. No.1 of 2024 seeking her impleadment in the writ petition. The application was rejected as the appellant was not eligible to seek appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶35

Learned Single Judge held that the civil dispute between the appellant and respondent No.1 relates to ancestral properties and for partition is pending. Further held that the impleading applicant - appellant has no locus to object the appointment to the petitioner /

¶36

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:33796-DB WA No. 846 of 2024

¶37

respondent No.1 on compassionate grounds. The respondentUniversity was directed to consider the representation dated 20.06.2022.

¶38

The appellant has preferred this appeal on the ground that respondent No.1 has deserted her and is living separately. The appellant was dependent on the earnings of her deceased son.

¶39

Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant has no independent source of income. The appellant was depending on the earnings of her deceased son and was being taken care by him. It is submitted that appointment on compassionate grounds is to overcome financial crisis due to the sudden death of the earning member.

¶40

Learned advocate further submits that though the appellant is not eligible to appointment on compassionate grounds, being the member of the family of deceased son, is entitled for maintenance. It is submitted that respondent No.1 has deserted the appellant and is living separately. Respondent No.1 has obligation to look after and maintain the appellant. It is submitted that unless an arrangement is made to take care of the wellbeing of the appellant,

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:33796-DB WA No. 846 of 2024

¶42

appointing respondent No.1 on compassionate grounds would defeat the very purpose of the appointment.

¶43

Considered the submissions of learned advocate for the

¶44

appellant and perused the appeal papers.

¶45

Late Annappa A.R., was working as Assistant Professor in the respondent-University. Respondent No.1 who is the widow of late Annappa A.R., filed a representation seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The appellant - mother of the deceased filed objections to the representation.

¶46

The appointment on compassionate grounds is governed by the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 (Rules 1996). Rule 2(a) and (b) of Rules 1996 defines “Dependent of a deceased Government Servant”, and “Family”. The same are extracted for immediate convenience,

¶47

“ 2. Definitions:- (1) In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires:-

¶48

(a) “Dependent of a deceased Government Servant” means a member of the family of the deceased Government Servant who was living with and dependent on the deceased Government Servant and who fulfils the conditions specified in the explanation to sub-rule (1) of rule 4;

¶49

(b) “Family” for the purpose of these rules,-

¶50

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:33796-DB WA No. 846 of 2024

¶51

(i) in the case of the deceased male married Government Servant, his widow, son and daughter (unmarried/married/divorced/widowed) who were dependent upon him and were living with him;

¶52

(ii) in the case of the deceased female married Government Servant her son, daughter (unmarried/married/divorced/widowed) and widower who were dependent upon her and were living with her;

¶53

(iii) in the case of the deceased male unmarried Government Servant, his brother or sister who were dependent upon him and were living with him;

¶54

(iv) in the case of the deceased female unmarried Government Servant, her brother or sister who were dependent upon her and were living with her; and

¶55

(v) in the case of the deceased married Government Servant whose spouse is also no more and who has minor children, the certified guardian of the minor children who is living with them and takes care of the minor children as per the provisions of relevant law.”

¶56

The appointment conditions are as per Rule 4 of Rules 1996,

¶57

“3. Eligibility for appointment:- (1) Appointment on compassionate grounds under these rules shall not be claimed as a matter of right and shall not be given as a matter of course.

¶58

(2) Appointment under these rules shall be restricted to the dependent of a deceased Government Servant in the following order of preference, namely:-

¶59

(i) in the case of the deceased male married Government Servant, -

¶60

(a) the widow; and

¶61

(b) son or daughter who is chosen by the widow of the deceased Government Servant, if the

¶62

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:33796-DB WA No. 846 of 2024

¶63

widow is not eligible or for any valid reason she is not willing to accept the appointment,

¶64

who were dependent on him and were living with him.

¶65

Note: In case spouse is pre-deceased then preference shall be given in the order of age of children.

¶66

4. Conditions of Appointment:- Appointment on compassionate grounds under these rules shall be subject to the following conditions, namely:-

¶67

(1) The family of the deceased Government Servant should be in a financial crisis or destitution.

¶68

Explanation.- (a) Family of a deceased Government Servant shall be considered to be in financial crisis or destitution if the recurring monthly income of the family from all sources is less than the total emoluments including Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance and City Compensatory Allowance admissible at Bangalore on the average of the minimum and the maximum of the scale of pay of the post of First Division Assistant, as on the date of making application for compassionate appointment. For calculating such monthly income, the income from family pension, lumpsum pensionary benefits and interest earned thereon shall be excluded.

¶69

[ Provided that, nothing in sub-rule (1), shall apply to Government Servants belonging to Group C and D]”

¶70

The following factual aspects are not in dispute. Late

¶71

Annappa A.R., was working as Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical in VTU and expired on 06.05.2022. Respondent No.1

¶72

is the widow and appellant is the mother of late Annappa A.R., The appellant is ineligible for appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶73

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:33796-DB WA No. 846 of 2024

¶74

The grievance of the appellant is that respondent No.1 is residing separately and she is not taking care of the appellant. Further, appellant is member of the family. Respondent No.1 has preferred suit for partition before the civil Court. The appellant is entitled to be maintained by respondent No.1. The Court is not concerned with the pending civil dispute between the appellant and respondent No.1 for the present. The dispute is only regarding appointment of respondent No.1 on compassionate grounds. The appointment on compassionate ground is governed by Rules 1996.

¶75

Rule 3(2) of Rules 1996 restricts appointment to the dependants of a deceased government servant in the order of preference. In the case of deceased male married government servant, first preference is to the widow, if not to son or daughter as chosen by the widow of the deceased government servant. When spouse is predeceased, preference is to the children in the order of age. Rule 4(1) of Rules 1996 imposes conditions of appointment. One such condition is, the family of the deceased government servant should be in a financial crisis or destitution.

¶76

As per Rule 2 of Rules 1996, dependent of a deceased government servant to be the member of the family, who was living

¶77

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:33796-DB WA No. 846 of 2024

¶78

with and dependent on the deceased government servant. For the purpose of Rules 1996, family would be widow, son and daughter who were dependents and were living with him.

¶79

On a conjoint reading of Rules 2, 3 and 4 of Rules 1996, it is explicit that widow and children of the deceased government servant would constitute dependents and family of the deceased government servant. Respondent No.1 being widow of the deceased government servant would be eligible to seek appointment on compassionate grounds. The appellant being mother of the deceased government servant is not eligible under Rules 1996 to seek appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶80

The dispute / grievance of the appellant is regarding respondent No.1 living separately and the appellant being ignored of maintenance. The above dispute is beyond the scope and ambit of Rules, 1996. The grievance does not relate to the appointment on compassionate grounds. The grievance is civil in nature, which is to be redressed in separate proceedings before appropriate forum.

¶81

In view of the finding of this Court that the appellant being mother of the deceased government servant is not eligible to seek

¶82

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:33796-DB WA No. 846 of 2024

¶83

appointment under Rules 1996, learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the application for impleadment.

¶84

For the reasons stated above, the appellant has no locus standi in the proceedings for appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of Rules 1996. The appellant cannot be said to have any grievance against the directions issued by learned Single Judge.

¶85

The writ appeal is devoid of merit.

¶86

Accordingly dismissed.

¶87

In view of the above conclusion, I.A.No.2 of 2024 seeking permission to prosecute the above appeal deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, rejected.

¶88

All pending applications for condonation of delay, production of additional documents and for stay do not survive for consideration. The same are rejected.

¶89

Sd/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶90

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶91

MV/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Smt. Jayamma v. Smt. Sindhuja. L. D.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jayamma v. Smt. Sindhuja. L. D.

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

The Taluk Vokkaligara Sangha Vs Sri. Vijay Kumar

M/S Siddhasiri Souharda Sahakari Niyamitha Vs Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

M/S Krishnadevaraya Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Chairman

Smt T a Jagadamba Vs the Deputy Commissioner

State of Karnataka Vs Sri. H.S. Gajendra

Karnataka State Open University Vs Smt Kanta D Devangavi