Dismissed

Shivananda S/O Mallikarjun G. Patil v. the Divisional Manager

Karnataka HC11 Sept 2024WP/104227/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner appealed rejection of compassionate appointment and complained of arbitrary scheme limits. Court held compassionate appointment is not a right; employer may define terms. Scheme valid; discrimination via lumpsum ceiling does not impede rights.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed for no justification to entertain; petitioner held ineligible under existing scheme.

Shivananda S/O Mallikarjun G. Patil Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13013 WP No. 104227 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO.104227 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHIVANANDA S/O. MALLIKARJUN G.PATIL, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: LACHYAN, TALUK: INDI, DISTRICT: VIJAYAPURA – 586 211.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKHAR R.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE ANNEX RIA SECTION, JEEVANPRAKASH

¶14

BUILDING 113-1, BENGALURU – 560 002.

¶15

THE REGIONAL MANAGER, CANARA BANK, SYNDICATE BANK REGIONAL OFFICE, VIJAYAPURA.

¶16

THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICER, PERSONNEL SECTION, VIJAYAPUR – 586 211.

¶17

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

¶18

THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, ANARA BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE, CENTRUM BUILDING, 2^ND FLOOR, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI – 580 022.

¶19

THE MANAGER, CANARA BANK, LACHYANA (SYNDICATE BANK), TQ: INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPUR 586101

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT NO. COHUB /HRM / SM/ 1166 / 2023, ISSUED BY THE 4^TH RESPONDENT DATED 22.11.2023, THE COPY OF THE SAME IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A. ISSUE ANY WRIT OF APPROPRIATE NATURE AND DECLARE THE SCHEME FOR PAYMENT OF EX-GRATIA LUMPSUM AMOUNT IN LIEU OF APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS TO THE DEPENDENTS OF THE EMPLOYEES

¶22

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13013 WP No. 104227 of 2024

¶23

DYING IN HARNESS/EMPLOYEES RETIRING ON MEDICAL GROUNDS AND APPOINTMENT OF DEPENDENTS OF DECEASED EMPLOYEES ON COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES, WHICH WAS INTRODUCED BY WAY CIRCULAR NO. 265-2007-BC-PD-53-HRD, DATED 05.12.2007, IS ULTRA VIRES THE LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE AND CONTRARY TO THE ARTICLE 14, COPY OF THE CIRCULAR IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A1 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.,

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Challenging endorsement dated 22.11.2023 issued by respondent no.4 at Annexure-A and seeking for declaration that scheme for payment of ex-gratia lumpsum amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds to dependents of employees dying in harness/employees retiring on medical grounds and appointment of dependents of deceased employees on compassionate grounds in exceptional cases, which was introduced by way of Circular no.265-2007-BC-PD53-HRD, dated 05.12.2007 at Annexure-A1, this writ petition is filed.

¶27

Sri Chandrashekhar R. Hiremath, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was son of Mallikarjun G. Patil, who died while working as attender in Syndicate Bank, Lachyana Branch on 08.12.2006. It was submitted, petitioner and his mother along with two other children were legal heirs of

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13013 WP No. 104227 of 2024

¶29

deceased. As per scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds, petitioner’s mother filed representation requesting for appointment of petitioner on compassionate grounds. She filed one more representation on 22.12.2006 at Annexure-E. Upon non-consideration, petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.No.200504/2023. Said writ petition was disposed of on 12.09.2023 with a direction to respondents to consider petitioner’s representation at Annexure-E within period of eight weeks.

¶30

It was submitted, in pursuance of said direction, respondent no.4 issued impugned endorsement at Annexure-A. It was submitted, reasons stated in impugned endorsement was that scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds was available only to those employees who died while on duty as a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity or where employee died within 5 years of his first appointment or before reaching age of 30 years, whichever was earlier leaving behind spouse and minor children. It was submitted, very purpose of provision for compassionate grounds appointment was to provide immediate succor to family of deceased in case they were in financial distress. Such being case, restricting eligibility

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13013 WP No. 104227 of 2024

¶32

to only two categories would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India. Therefore, petitioner was also questioning constitutional validity of scheme. It was further submitted, even insofar as provision for compensation or lumpsum ex-gratia amount, there was discrimination as it provided ceiling of Rs.6,00,000/-. On said ground sought for allowing writ petition.

¶33

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition

¶34

record.

¶35

From above, it is seen petitioner’s application for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected by reference to extant guidelines/circulars for appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶36

It is settled law that compassionate appointments cannot be claimed as a matter of right and same would be subject to rules/regulations/scheme providing for appointment on compassionate grounds. Respondent – Bank had adopted scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds, but only in case where death of employee had occurred while he was performing official duty as a result of violence, terrorism,

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13013 WP No. 104227 of 2024

¶38

robbery or dacoity. This scheme is also extended to those employees who died during first 5 years of service or before reaching age of 30 years leaving behind dependents spouse and minor children. Reason behind said condition is not hard to fathom. Respondent has adopted a policy of providing compassionate appointment only to those employees who died in harness as a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity etc. or to those employees who died immediately after few years of service leaving behind dependents spouse and children who would be thrust into financial distress. Failure to enlarge scheme for compassionate appointment in case of all employees who died during service cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

¶39

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors., reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1, has held appointments to all posts in Government/Semi-Government should be by regular recruitment process which would be open to all eligible persons. Scheme of appointment on compassionate grounds would be an exception. It would be within wisdom of employer to provide for compassionate appointment and to device terms thereof. Since

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13013 WP No. 104227 of 2024

¶41

petitioner does not satisfy prescribed norms, petitioner cannot maintain any grievance. Insofar as alleged discrimination in payment of lumpsum ex-gratia also a similar principle would apply. Terms of appointment or service regulation are not demonstrated to be inclusive of a provision for appointment on compassionate grounds or for payment of particular amount as ex-gratia in case of death during service. Payment of ‘ex-gratia’ being as very meaning of term would mean ‘out of grace’ and beyond payment of all terminal benefits. Therefore, prescription of ceiling limit of amount does not impede any legal right or fundamental right of petitioner. On above grounds, I do not find any justification to entertain this writ petition.

¶42

Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

¶43

Sd/(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶44

GRD CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Shivananda S/O Mallikarjun G. Patil v. the Divisional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivananda S/O Mallikarjun G. Patil v. the Divisional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arjun S/O Basavaraj Hyadal Vs the State of Karnataka

Alina D/O Jameelahmed Punekar Vs Shri Jameelahmed S/O Maheboobsab Punekar

Anita Patil D/O. Veeranagouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Prasanth Babaji Vs the State of Karnataka

Jyothi D/O. Satwaji Atwadkar Vs Primary Cooperative Agriculture and

Vimala D/O Mahadev Naik Vs the State of Karnataka