Allowed

Smt. Manjula W/O Late Shashikant Bagi, v. the Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC14 Aug 2024WP/101719/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenged an endorsement rejecting their application for compassionate appointment. The court allowed the petition and quashed the endorsement.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; endorsement dated 16.05.2022 quashed; respondent directed to reconsider petitioners' claim within six months under the 1991 scheme.

Smt. Manjula W/O Late Shashikant Bagi, Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11686 WP No. 101719 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.101719 OF 2024 (S-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. MANJULA W/O. LATE SHASHIKANT BAGI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: BASAVANA GALLI, CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 201.

¶9

ABHISHEK S/O. LATE SHASHIKANT BAGI, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYED, R/O: BASAVANA GALLI, CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 201.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI NAMAZIABDUL SATTAR RAHIMANSAHEB, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, N.W.K.R.T.C., CHIKODI DIVISION, CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 201.

¶14

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH MANJANNAE COURT OFKARNATAKADHARWAD BENCH Date: 2024.08.17 11:33:34 +0530

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI Y.G.HIREGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SUNITA P. KALASOOR, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, CALL FOR RECORDS. ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ORDER OR DIRECTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION MARKED AT ANNEXURE-D, D-2 AND D-3 AND D4, DATED 19/04/2022, 11/10/2012, 21/04/2022, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND CONSCIENCE. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT VIDE ANNEXURE-D, ISSUED BY RESPONDENT DATED 16/05/2022 AND ETC.,

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11686 WP No. 101719 of 2024

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

This writ petition is filed challenging endorsement dated 16.05.2022, issued by respondent and seeking for direction to consider petitioners’ representations dated 19.04.2022, 11.10.2012, 21.04.2022 at Annexures-D, D2, D3 and D4 respectively.

¶22

Sri Namaziabdul Sattar Rahimansaheb, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that husband of petitioner no.1 namely Shashikant Mahadev Bagi was working as driver cum conductor with respondent Corporation. While, he was serving in Raibag Depot, Chikodi, he died on 17.02.2009 leaving behind petitioners as his survivors. Since, petitioners were thrust into financial distress due to his untimely death and as petitioner no.2, had passed in ITI (Fitter), he applied for consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds. His representations dated 19.04.2022, 11.10.2012, 21.04.2022 at Annexures-D, D2, D3 and D4 were rejected as per Annexure-D6 on wholly untenable reasons. It was

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11686 WP No. 101719 of 2024

¶24

submitted that until 04.12.2018 when respondent Corporation adopted new policy for appointment on compassionate grounds, scheme as per Annexure-E, dated 09.10.1991 was in force. As per Clause 5 of Annexure-E, application could be filed upto five years from date of attainment of age of majority or completion of education. Only those applications filed beyond said period would be liable to rejection. But respondent has applied time limit of one year stipulated under 2018 scheme for rejection. Same was unsustainable and sought for interference.

¶25

On other hand, Sri Y.G.Hiregoudar, learned counsel appearing for Smt.Sunita P.Kalasoor, learned counsel for respondent, at outset submitted that, respondent would reconsider petitioners’ case for compassionate appointment.

¶26

In view of submission, without any more, writ petition is allowed and endorsement at Annexure-D5 is quashed. Respondent is directed to re-consider petitioners’ claim for appointment on compassionate ground strictly as

¶27

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11686 WP No. 101719 of 2024

¶28

per 1991 scheme, within an outer limit of six months from

¶29

date of receipt of certified copy of order.

¶30

Sd/(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶31

VB CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54

Smt. Manjula W/O Late Shashikant Bagi, v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Manjula W/O Late Shashikant Bagi, v. the Divisional Controller

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

Smt Rekha S W/O Ambarishaiah. G Vs Shri Ambarsihaiah G S/O Gundaiah Tondehal Hiremath

Uma Satish Kamble Vs the Chairman and Managing Director

Smt. Shaihinaj W/O Late Abdulrazak Dharwad Vs the Superintendent Engineer (v)

Sri. H Mallu Swami @ Mallikarjun H. Anantapur Vs Mr. Arun Kumar Agarwal

Sri.Basavaraj.S.Patil Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Sri. Raju Bharmu Badiger Vs the Director (Administration and) Kptcl