Allowed

Sagar S/O. Parashuram Otari Alias Vatare v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2024WP/103892/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Son of a bank employee who died of Covid-19 challenged rejection of his compassionate appointment application. The court held the scheme applicable was the one with retrospective effect from the date of death, not the later modified income ceiling, quashed the rejection and directed reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Endorsement dated 02.08.2022 quashed; respondents directed to reconsider petitioner's compassionate appointment application per Revised Scheme dated 16.03.2021 within six weeks.

Sagar S/O. Parashuram Otari Alias Vatare Vs the… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12842 WP No. 103892 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.103892 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SAGAR S/O. PARASHURAM OTARI @ VATARE, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT, R/O: 892D, SRI RENUKA DEVI NILAYA, SHRIRAMNAGAR, 2^ND CROSS, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI – 581 115.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI GIRISH V.BHAT AND SMT.PALLAVI PALEKAR, ADVOCATES)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF P AND HRD, HEAD OFFICE, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI – 581 115, BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR (HR) AND CORPORATE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER.

¶13

THE DEPUTY MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, P.B. ROAD BRANCH, P.B. ROAD, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI – 581 115.

¶14

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, P.B. ROAD BRANCH, P.B. ROAD, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI – 581 115.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI VADIRAJ P.VADAVI, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OR A DIRECTION OR AN APPROPRIATE ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED LETTER/ENDORSEMENT DATED 02.08.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS VIDE ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION. ISSUE A WRIT OR A DIRECTION OR AN APPROPRIATE ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12842 WP No. 103892 of 2023

¶20

REVISED SCHEME DATE 15.06.2022, PASSED BY 1^ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-G AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. ISSUE A WRIT OR A DIRECTION OR AN APPROPRIATE ORDER IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER TO ISSUE APPOINTMENT ORDER APPOINTING THE PETITIONER ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND TO THE SUITABLE POST IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SAID SCHEME PASSED BY 1^ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-F PREVAILING ON THE DATE OF APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER AND ETC.,

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Challenging endorsement dated 02.08.2022

¶24

issued by respondent no.2 as per Annexure-D and seeking for quashing of Revised Scheme dated 15.06.2022 issued by respondent no.1 at Annexure-G, and for direction to consider petitioner’s case for appointment on compassionate grounds in accordance scheme at Annexure-F, this writ petition is filed.

¶25

Sri Girish V.Bhat, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, prayer challenging constitutional validity of Revised Scheme at Annexure-G was given up. It was submitted petitioner’s father Parashuram Otari @ Vatare was while working as Branch Manager (Junior Associate) died on

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12842 WP No. 103892 of 2023

¶27

20.08.2020 after 26 years of service, due to Covid-2019 pandemic. His sudden death left his survivors wife and two sons in financial distress.

¶28

In terms of scheme providing for appointment on compassionate grounds petitioner was eligible. Therefore, he submitted application on 29.03.2020 as per Annexure-C. But same was rejected on ground that petitioner was married and not dependent on deceased employee, by erroneously presuming application was by daughter. Same was ex facie illegal.

¶29

Under communication at Annexure-E, it was once again rejected on ground that present income of petitioner was more than ceiling limit fixed at Rs.16,000/- by respondent modifying Revised Scheme at Annexure-G. Said reason was untenable on ground that income norm prevailing at time of death had to be applied and not from Annexure-G, which was issued much after date of death. Thus, petitioner’s candidature had to be considered as per eligibility criteria stipulated in Revised Scheme at Annexure-F, para no.7.3 of which provided, only if total

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12842 WP No. 103892 of 2023

¶32

income of family of deceased employee was less than Rs.75% of last drawn gross salary of deceased, they would be eligible for appointment. It was submitted, while considering eligibility, parameters for computation of family income of petitioner were as per later Circular at Annexure-G and therefore erroneous.

¶33

It was submitted when employee died on 20.08.2020, and Revised Scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds was notified later on 16.03.2021 and made retrospectively applicable. Said Scheme extended for first time provisions of compassionate appointment even to death due to Covid-19, with retrospective effect from 24.03.2020. Said aspect was not taken note of. It was also contended that rejection at Annexure-D or Annexure-E was not by competent authority. On above grounds sought for allowing writ petition.

¶34

On other hand, Sri Vadiraj P.Vadavi, learned counsel for respondents no.1, 2 and 3 sought to oppose writ petition. It was submitted, Scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds stipulated period of six months for

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12842 WP No. 103892 of 2023

¶37

filing application. It was submitted, petitioner’s father died on 20.08.2020 whereas application was filed on 15.04.2021.

¶38

Time limit for filing application was six months in para 9 of Revised Scheme notified on 16.03.2021 at Annexure-F, as well as para 3 of modification to Revised Scheme as per Annexure-G dated 15.06.2022 and there was no provision for exemption/relaxation.

¶39

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record.

¶40

Thus, it is seen petitioner is challenging endorsement at Annexure-E rejecting claim for compassionate appointment on ground of family income is beyond Rs.16,000/-.

¶41

During course of arguments, respondent has also contended that application filed on 29.03.2021 was time barred.

¶42

Admittedly, petitioner’s father died on 20.08.2020. Application for compassionate appointment is filed by petitioner on 29.03.2021. Indeed clause 9 of Revised

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12842 WP No. 103892 of 2023

¶44

Scheme at Annexure-F requires application to be filed within

¶45

six months from date of death. But para-4 extends application of Scheme in respect of death due to Covid-19 with retrospective effect from 24.03.2020. Said extension being introduced for first time under Scheme at Annexure-F from 16.03.2021, that too with retrospective effect, it cannot be contended that time limit would be computed from date of death. Same can at best be from 16.03.2021.

¶46

Further, para-3.1 in Modification to Revised Scheme at Annexure-G dated 15.06.2022, it is specifically provided that dependent family members may apply/reapply under Modified Guidelines within three months from Annexure-G. Therefore, contention regarding application being time barred would not be justified.

¶47

Insofar as reason mentioned in Annexure-E that total income of family members would exceed Rs.16,000/-, would require to be interfered with on sole ground that provision for compassionate appointment prevalent as on date of death i.e. 20.08.2020 would be Revised Scheme at Annexure-F (as it was introduced with retrospective effect

¶48

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12842 WP No. 103892 of 2023

¶49

from 24.03.2020). Same is contained in para-7.3 in Annexure-F, which affirms financial eligibility if monthly income of family is less than 75% of last drawn gross salary of deceased. Therefore, petitioner would be entitled for relief.

¶50

Hence, writ petition is allowed, Impugned endorsement at Annexure-E dated 02.08.2022 is quashed. Respondents are directed to reconsider petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment dated 19.03.2021 in terms of Revised Scheme dated 16.03.2021 at Annexure-F, within period of six weeks from date of receipt of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law.

¶51

Sd/(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶52

EM CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

Sagar S/O. Parashuram Otari Alias Vatare v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagar S/O. Parashuram Otari Alias Vatare v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Shabbir Ghorikhan S/O Mohammad Vs the Divisional Controller

Smt. Shwetha S/O Manjunath Alias Manjappa Madiwal Vs Manjunath Alias Manjappa Madiwal S/O Krishna Papul Madiwal

Smt Bharathi W/O Subhash Patil Vs Subhash Ishwar Patil

Gurushiddappa S/O Sangappa Belavatagi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Seeta W/O. Late Ramchandra Nayak Vs the Senior Assistant Director

Yellappa S/O. Tippanna Karigar, Vs the Management of