Dismissed

The State Of Karnataka v. Sri Neelakantha, So Basavaraj Kumbar

Karnataka HC4 Jan 2024WP/100018/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the State against a Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal order. The Court held that the pendency of a civil suit for pension benefits did not impede consideration of an application for compassionate appointment within the framework of applicable service rules.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; Tribunal order affirmed; 3 months time granted for compliance.

The State Of Karnataka Vs Sri Neelakantha… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:173-DB WP No. 100018 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 100018 OF 2024 (S-KAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶11

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, M. S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2024.01.10 15:30:02 +0530

¶14

THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATION REFORMS (DPAR) VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶15

THE PROJECT DIRECTOR HRMS E-GOVERNANCE MINISTRY GATE-2, II FLOOR, M. S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

¶16

THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, AGRICULTURE COMMISSIONERATE, SHESHADRI ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560009.

¶17

THE NODAL OFFICER FOR HRMS IN THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, AGRICULTURE

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:173-DB WP No. 100018 of 2024

¶19

COMMISSIONERATE, SHESHADRI ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560009.

¶20

THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, MULAGUND ROAD, GADAG, TALUK GADAG, DISTRICT GADAG-582101.

¶21

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, RON, TALUK RON, DISTRICT GADAG-582209.

¶22

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, RON, TALUK RON, DISTRICT GADAG-582209.

¶23

…PETITIONERS

¶24

(BY SRI. G. K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

SRI. NEELAKANTHA S/O BASAVARAJ KUMBAR, 23 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. 1ST WARD, NEAR OLD PANCHAYAT, SUDI VILLAGE, TALUK GAJENDRAGAD, DISTRICT GADAG-582211.

¶27

SMT. SAVITA CALLING HERSELF AS WIFE OF SRI BASAVARAJ KUMBAR, 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SUDI VILLAGE, TALUK GAJENDRAGAD, DISTRICT GADAG-582211.

¶28

VISHWANATH CALLING HIMSELF AS SON OF BASAVARAJ KUMBAR, 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SUDI VILLAGE, TALUK GAJENDRAGAD, DISTRICT GADAG-582211.

¶29

VIJAYALAXMI @ LAXMI, W/O. MAHANTESH KUMBAR CALLING HERSELF AS DAUGHTER OF BASAVARAJ KUMBAR, 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SUDI VILLAGE, TALUK GAJENDRAGAD, DISTRICT GADAG-582211.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:173-DB WP No. 100018 of 2024

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION NO.10765/2021 BY ORDER DATED 25.10.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶33

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, K V ARAVIND, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

This petition by the State Government aggrieved against the order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Belagavi (for short, ‘Tribunal’) in Application No.10765 of 2021 dated 25.10.2021.

¶36

Sri Basavaraj Kudleppa Kumbar was working as Tracer in the office of petitioner No.10. He died on 09.09.2020 while in service. The 1^st respondent filed an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground as legal heir of late Basavaraj Kudleppa Kumbar.

¶37

The petitioner No.10 rejected the application for appointment on compassionate at Annexure-A6 on the ground that Smt.Savita has filed O.S.No.366/2020 pending before the Principal Civil Judge at Ron, claiming pension and retirement benefits of deceased Basavaraj Kudleppa Kumbar.

¶38

- 4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:173-DB WP No. 100018 of 2024

¶39

The 1^st respondent challenging the

¶40

communication dated 24.05.2021 at Annexure-A6 preferred application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by order dated 25.10.2021 set aside communication dated 24.05.2020 issued by petitioner No.10 at Annexure-A6 and directed petitioner Nos.6 to 9 to consider the application in accordance with law without reference to O.S.No.366/2020 within a period of 3 months.

¶41

Sri G.K.Hiregoudar, learned Government Advocate submits that Smt.Savita and two others have preferred suit in O.S.No.366/2020 claiming to be the legal representatives of late Basavaraj Kudleppa Kumbar. In view of the dispute regarding legal heirs, direction by the Tribunal to consider the application for appointment on compassionate grounds without reference to the pending suit is incorrect. Thus, prays to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal.

¶42

We have heard Sri G.K.Hiregoudar, learned Government Advocate for the petitioners and perused the petition papers.

¶43

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:173-DB WP No. 100018 of 2024

¶44

It is not in dispute that late Basavaraj Kudleppa

¶45

Kumbar died on 09.09.2020 while in service. It is not in dispute that the 1^st respondent is the son of the deceased. The petitioners in the communication at Annexure-A6 have not stated any reasons regarding ineligibility of the 1^st respondent. The direction by the Tribunal is to consider the application in accordance with law and subject to eligibility.

¶46

In O.S.No.366/2020 by respondents No.11 to 13, prayer is to declare that respondents are entitled to receive pension amount and also service benefits pertaining to deceased Basavaraj Kudleppa Kumbar. Rights of the plaintiffs i.e. respondents No.11 to 13 are yet to be established/determined. Admittedly, there is no interim order in the said suit. Therefore, mere pendency of the suit would not be an impediment for considering application of respondent No.1 for appointment on compassionate grounds in accordance with Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate ground) Rules, 1996. The object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased government servant to tide over the crisis of losing

¶47

- 6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:173-DB WP No. 100018 of 2024

¶48

bread earner of the family and to grant relief against financial destitution. It is settled position of law that as a matter of right, one cannot seek appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶49

In the circumstances, we are of the view that mere pendency of O.S.No.366/2020 has no bearing on considering the application seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The direction issued by the Tribunal to consider the application for compassionate appointment without reference to O.S.No.366/2020 is justified. The petitioners are required to consider the application for compassionate appointment in accordance with KCS (Appointment on Compassionate ground) Rules, 1996.

¶50

In view of the foregoing reasons, no interference with the order of the Tribunal is warranted. Hence, the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

i. Writ petition is dismissed .

¶53

¶54

NC: 2024:KHC-D:173-DB WP No. 100018 of 2024

¶55

ii. Order passed by the Tribunal in Application No.10765 of 2021 dated 25.10.2021 is affirmed.

¶56

iii. The order of the Tribunal dated 25.10.2021 if not complied by the petitioners as directed, 3 months time is granted from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order for compliance.

¶57

iv. No order as to costs.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

CLK

LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 7

The State Of Karnataka v. Sri Neelakantha, So Basavaraj Kumbar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State Of Karnataka v. Sri Neelakantha, So Basavaraj Kumbar

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

Henry Darshi S/O Darshi Sangeetrao Vs Hepzaibah Henry Darshi Alias Hepziah Yamrthy

Malan W/O Yashwant Sayanekar Vs Parashuram S/O Narayan Nilajkar

Suhail S/O. Zaheerudun Adhoni, Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Shri. Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwar Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Padmashree Vs Naveen Kumar

The State Of Karnataka Vs S B Biradar