Dismissed

A R Manjunatha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2024WP/107/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected two writ petitions seeking compassionate appointment for the deceased's family in the Chamarajendra Zoo. Finding no statutory rules for compassionate appointment and noting previous contract offers that were delayed or declined, the Court held the petitions were barred by law and conduct. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Petitions rejected; all pending compassionate appointment applications disposed of.

A R Manjunatha Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:20350 WP No. 107 of 2014 C/W WP No. 14215 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 107 OF 2014 (S-RES) C/W

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 14215 OF 2013 (S-RES) IN WP NO. 107/2014

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

A. R. MANJUNATHA

¶11

S/O LATE RAJU AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/O HOUE NO.280 ALANAHALLI VILLAGE(WARD NO.56) MYSORE-570028.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. RANGANATHA S JOIS .,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ENVIRONMENT & BIO SCIENCES M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.

¶17

THE ADDL. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST & MEMBER SECRETARY KARNATAKA ZOO AUTHORITY MYSORE-560001.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:20350 WP No. 107 of 2014 C/W WP No. 14215 of 2013

¶20

CHAMARAJENDRA ZOO, MYSORE REP BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER MYSORE - 560 001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.GOPALA KRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R1 & R2

¶23

SMT. M.P. GEETHADEVI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT UNDER THE KARNATAKA SERVICES OF APPOINTMENT ON K.C.S. (APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS) RULES 1996 AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME AND ISSUE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS, TO THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH WITHOUT FURTHER LOSS OF TIME AND EXTEND ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS INCLUDING MONETARY BENEFITS.

¶25

IN WP NO. 14215/2013

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

SRI HARISH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, S/O LATE K.NAGARAJ, R/AT #89/1, 3^RD CROSS, KURUBARA HALLI, SIDDARATHANAGAR, MYSORE-560 001.

¶28

…PETITIONER

¶29

(BY SRI. RANGANATHA S JOIS .,ADVOCATE)

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:20350 WP No. 107 of 2014 C/W WP No. 14215 of 2013

¶32

AND:

¶33

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ENVIRONMENT & BIO SCIENCES, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶34

THE ADDL PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, & MEMBER SECRETARY, KARNATAKA ZOO AUTHORITY, MYSORE - 580 001.

¶35

CHAMARAJENDRA ZOO MYSORE, REPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MYSORE - 580 001.

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI.GOPALA KRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R1; SMT. M.P. GEETHADEVI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶38

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS RELATING THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. APAJEE/07/FPC/2011 DATED 5.8.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-C PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT, PERUSE THE SAME AND QUASH THE SAID ORDER AS BEING VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14,16(1) & 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, IN SO FAR AS REJECTING THE REQUEST FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:20350 WP No. 107 of 2014 C/W WP No. 14215 of 2013

¶41

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

The question for consideration in these petitions is whether this Court must direct the Chamarajendra Zoo, Mysuru [the third respondent] to appoint the petitioners on compassionate grounds . It is undisputed that Sri K Nagaraju and Sri Raju died on 16.07.2008 and 10.11.2012 respectively. The petitioner in W.P. No.14215/2013 claims under Sri K Nagaraju, and the petitioner in W.P. No.107/2014 claims under Sri Raju.

¶44

The petitioners have indeed filed their applications for appointment on compassionate grounds within one year of the demise, but these applications are rejected by the third respondent by separate and respective Endorsements dated 05.08.2011 and 08.04.2014. These Endorsements read that the request for appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be considered as the

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:20350 WP No. 107 of 2014 C/W WP No. 14215 of 2013

¶47

relevant C & R Rules are not approved by the Government. The petitioner in W.P. No.14215/2013 has produced the Endorsement dated 05.08.2011, but the Endorsement dated 08.04.2014 is produced by the Zoo Authority and not by the petitioner.

¶48

Sri Ranganatha Jois, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that the Zoo Authority could not have issued the Endorsement dated 05.08.2011 because it had earlier, on 20.11.2008 as per Annexure-A, sought for consent of the State Government to appoint the petitioners on compassionate grounds and that though the Zoo Authority did not have its own Cadre and Recruitment Rules [C and R Rules] until 2019, it was nevertheless under the Department of Forests from the year 1972 and as such the compassionate appointment Rules applicable to the State Government Employees would apply.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:20350 WP No. 107 of 2014 C/W WP No. 14215 of 2013

¶51

The merits of these contentions are considered in the light of the following as emphasized by Smt. M P Geethadevi, the learned counsel for the Zoo Authority.

¶52

[a] The Zoo Authority had its own Service Manual, and this Service Manual was in vogue until separate C and R Rules are approved in the year 2019. The Zoo Authority until the present C and R Rules are approved did not have a scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds, and in fact, the Service Manual only enabled the Zoo Authorities to offer employment on contract to a family member of the deceased.

¶53

[b] This scheme, as part of the Service Manual, was to ensure that financial difficulties of the family members are taken care of and there is no right

¶54

to seek appointment on compassionate grounds. In accordance with this scheme under the aforesaid manual, the employment

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:20350 WP No. 107 of 2014 C/W WP No. 14215 of 2013

¶57

on contract was offered to both the petitioners.

¶58

If the petitioner in W.P. No.14215/2013 accepted such offer only to be in employment for two years, the other petitioner in W.P. No.107/2014 did not even accept the offer.

¶59

The proposition that appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be insisted as a right, especially in the absence of relevant Rules, cannot be disputed. This Court, with the Service Manual in force, cannot opine that only because the Zoo Authority was under administrative control of the Department of Forest, the compassionate appointment rules applicable to the State Government employees would apply.

¶60

Crucially, the petitioner in W.P. No.14215/2013 does not dispute [though he contends that he secured a copy of the Endorsement dated 05.08.2011 under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005] that he had a copy of this Endorsement in the month of February 2012 and this

¶61

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC:20350 WP No. 107 of 2014 C/W WP No. 14215 of 2013

¶63

petition is filed only in the month of March 2013, a year later. The petitioner in W.P. No.107/2014 does not even refer to the Endorsement dated 08.04.2014.

¶64

This Court must observe from the afore two circumstances highlighted by Smt. M P Geethadevi underscores the efforts to secure employment as a matter of right when it is not available, and the delay and conduct as aforesaid also disentitle the petitioners to any direction.

¶65

Therefore, the petitions are rejected.

¶66

Consequentially, all the pending applications stand disposed of.

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

AN/-

A R Manjunatha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A R Manjunatha 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri M v Muniyappa Vs Chief Administrative Officer and Secretary

Smt. Anjinamma Vs State of Karnataka

A.N. Narasimhaiah Vs Executive Officer

Niranjan B K Vs the Karnataka Residential

Sri Anantha Servegara Vs the State of Karnataka

V R Srinivas Vs Karnataka Grameen Bank