Allowed

Smt Mahalakshmi R v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Aug 2024WP/1321/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by the daughter of a deceased government employee, challenging her rejection for compassionate appointment solely because she was married. The Court held the Tribunal erred in relying on an amendment given a prospective effect after the restriction on married daughters was struck down.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; Tribunal order set aside; endorsement rejecting application set aside; respondent directed to reconsider petition ignoring petitioner's marital status.

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

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:31907-DB WP No. 1321 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA WRIT PETITION NO.1321 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. MAHALAKSHMI R. D/O LATE K.M. RAJENDRA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT NO.4, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR PIPELINE, CHIKKABANAVARA BENGALURU-560 090

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. VIJAY V. BAJENTRI, ADVOCATE A/W SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by NANDINI D Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001

¶16

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSEPCTOR GENERAL OF POLICE KARNATAKA FIRE FORCE EMERGENCY SERVICES NO.1, ANNASWAMY MUDALIYAR ROAD BENGALURU-560 042

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2)

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:31907-DB WP No. 1321 of 2024

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.8.2022 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No.4769/2021 VIDE ANNEXUREA AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶25

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶26

and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶27

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue raised in this writ petition is covered by several judgments of this Court including in

¶28

Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranik vs. State of Karnataka¹ . It

¶29

is submitted that the petitioner, who is a married daughter

¶30

1 ILR 2021 KAR 5256

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:31907-DB WP No. 1321 of 2024

¶32

of late K.M. Rajendra who died in harness on 03.11.2017, had filed an application on 18.05.2018 for appointment under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme. The application came to be rejected on 27.07.2018 on the short ground that she is a married daughter and is not entitled to appointment under the Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 2016' for short). Thereafter, she submitted a representation dated 19.04.2021 seeking reconsideration of the application on the grounds that the rules had been amended from 09.04.2021. It is submitted that the said representation was also rejected by endorsement dated 30.06.2021 which was challenged before the Tribunal.

¶33

The Tribunal considered the contentions advanced as also the fact that the rules for compassionate appointment stood amended by notification dated 09.04.2021. However, on the ground that the rules for giving appointment on compassionate grounds to married

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:31907-DB WP No. 1321 of 2024

¶36

daughters, are only prospective in effect, the application was dismissed.

¶37

The learned counsel or the petitioner submits that the rules, insofar as they limited the consideration of compassionate appointment only to unmarried daughters, stood struck down by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranik, supra. It is contended that, with the striking down of the said provision, the requirement that only unmarried daughters would apply for compassionate appointment stood deleted from the Rules notwithstanding the amendment on 09.04.2021. It is submitted that this Court, in several judgments, has considered this point and has held that with the striking down of the rules, the applications may have to be considered as if the rules stood amended with effect from the very inception of the Rules, 1996.

¶38

The learned Additional Government Advocate

¶39

submits that concluded cases cannot be permitted to be

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:31907-DB WP No. 1321 of 2024

¶41

reopened on the basis of the amended rules or even the judgment of this Court.

¶42

Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that what was challenged before the Tribunal was the endorsement dated 30.06.2021 by which the representation submitted by the petitioner stood rejected. The petitioner had sought a consideration of her case for compassionate appointment, in view of the striking down of the Rule which limited the consideration only to unmarried daughters. It is not disputed before us that the rejection of the application for compassionate appointment by the respondents was on the sole ground that the petitioner was a married daughter of the Government servant who died in harness.

¶43

In view of the said factual situation, we are of the opinion that the rejection of the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the amendment dated 09.04.2021 is only prospective is not proper. We notice that the offending provision had been struck down by this Court in Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranik , supra. If that be so, the

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:31907-DB WP No. 1321 of 2024

¶45

contention that the amendment dated 09.04.2021 is prospective make no difference to the situation since the provision which is struck down cannot be relied on by the respondents to reject the application.

¶46

In the above view of the matter, we are of the

¶47

opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition.

¶48

9. Accordingly, we pass the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

(i) Writ petition is allowed .

¶51

(ii) The order of the Tribunal in Application No.4769/2021 dated 04.08.2022 impugned herein is set aside.

¶52

(iii) The endorsement dated 30.06.2021 shall also stand set aside.

¶53

(iv) The respondent shall reconsider the representation submitted by the petitioner taking note of the eligibility of the petitioner in accordance with the application preferred on 18.05.2018 without reference to the fact that she is a married daughter.

¶54

¶55

NC: 2024:KHC:31907-DB WP No. 1321 of 2024

¶56

All other issues are left open to be decided by the

¶57

respondents in accordance with law.

¶58

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶59

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶60

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Smt Mahalakshmi R v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Mahalakshmi R 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Shivaji

Mr.Gururaja J Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Bharathi a Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Eranna S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Gangaram Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Impel Exports Vs Suvikram Plastex Private Limited