Allowed

Smt. Meghashri v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Aug 2024WP/16640/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Daughter of a government servant who died in service sought compassionate appointment; Tribunal rejected her application as belated and as barred by a prospective amendment. The court held those findings erroneous since provisions excluding married daughters had been struck down, set aside the Tribunal order and directed respondents to consider her application on merits within three months.

What the court decided

AI extract

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

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:33936-DB WP No. 16640 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA WRIT PETITION NO. 16640 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. MEGHASHRI D/O LATE SRI. V. NATARAJU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS W/O SRI. SHIVARAJ RESIDING AT NO.528 THENOBAD ROAD NAZARBAD, MYSURU-570 001.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RANGANATHA S. JOIS., ADVOCATE AND SRI. S.Y. RODAGI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

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

¶15

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS M.S. BUILDING DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001

¶16

THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ADMN) NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:33936-DB WP No. 16640 of 2023

¶19

THE COMMANDANT KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE MOUNTED COMPANY MYSURU-570 001

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (i) CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.06.2023 MADE IN A.No.3649/2022 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A, PERUSE AND QUASH THE SAID ORDER AS ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL, AND ERRONEOUS AND CONTRARY TO ARTICLES 14, 16(1) AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and

¶25

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶28

This writ petition is filed seeking the following

¶29

reliefs:-

¶30

i. "Call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 24.06.2023 made in A.No.3649/2022 passed by the Hon'ble Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru vide Annexure-A, peruse and quash the said order as arbitrary and illegal, and erroneous and

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:33936-DB WP No. 16640 of 2023

¶32

contrary to Article 14, 16(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶33

ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to issue appointment order on compassionate ground to the petitioner by treating her as a dependant as expeditiously as possible without further delay with all consequential benefits and also allow the application before the Hon'ble Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, in A.No.1546/2021 and etc."

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as

¶35

well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶36

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the daughter of V.Nataraju, who died while in service on 07.09.2019. The petitioner's mother, the widow of the deceased Government servant had made an application on 06.11.2019 seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner. However, same was rejected by an endorsement dated 10.12.2019 on the ground that petitioner is a married daughter and that there is no provision in the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1996' for short) to

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:33936-DB WP No. 16640 of 2023

¶39

grant appointment to married daughter of a Government

¶40

Servant died in service.

¶41

Petitioner challenged the said endorsement before the Tribunal and by an order dated 03.03.2021, the Tribunal allowed application and had directed

¶42

reconsideration of the application for compassionate appointment. The respondent No.4 herein was specifically directed to consider the application of the applicant submitted for compassionate appointment strictly in accordance with the Rules if she is otherwise eligible under the Rules.

¶43

It is submitted that on 15.03.2021, pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal, the petitioner had submitted a detailed representation before the respondent No.4 herein. Thereafter, on 22.07.2021, an application in proper format was again submitted by the petitioner. However, the said application was also rejected by Annexure - A13 endorsement dated 03.08.2022 on the ground that the petitioner's application was belated. It

¶44

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:33936-DB WP No. 16640 of 2023

¶45

was also stated that she was not entitled for compassionate appointment in accordance with the Rules.

¶46

The said endorsement was again challenged before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal found that the application made by the petitioner in format on 22.07.2021 was belated since the date of death was 07.09.2019. Further, it was also found that though the Rules had been amended on 09.04.2021, the amendment was prospective in operation and could not be applicable for considering the application submitted by the petitioner, since the date of death of her father was 07.09.2019.

¶47

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

¶48

that the position that a married daughter could not be denied appointment was well settled even prior to the death of the petitioner's father and relies on Annexure - A1 order of the Tribunal in Application No.9763/2015 dated 27.10.2017 in support of the said contention. It is contended that relying on several judgments of this Court as well as Apex Court, the Tribunal had clearly held that

¶49

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:33936-DB WP No. 16640 of 2023

¶50

any provision denying appointment to married daughters including Rule 3 (b) of the Rules, 1996 would be illegal and discriminatory.

¶51

It is further contended that this Court in Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranik vs. State of Karnataka

¶52

and others reported in ILR 2021 KAR 5256 has also held that the provision in the Rules which denies appointment to married daughter is bad in law and has struck down the offending provisions. This Court has also thereafter considered the effect of the striking down of the Rules and has held in W.P.No.20216/2024 dated 31.07.2024 that even without the amendment to the Rules by notification dated 09.04.2021, the striking down would

¶53

be effective from the very inception of the Rules and that therefore, the claim of married daughters would have to be considered without the question of prospective operation or retrospectivity of the amendment dated 09.04.2021 being considered. It is therefore contended

¶54

¶55

NC: 2024:KHC:33936-DB WP No. 16640 of 2023

¶56

that the order of the Tribunal which declines the claim of the petitioner was per se erroneous.

¶57

Learned Government Advocate submits that a reply statement had been placed on record before the Tribunal specifically stating that the death being on 07.09.2019 and the amendment to the Rules having taken effect only from 09.04.2021, the application submitted by the petitioner would have to be considered taking note of the law as on the date of death of the Government servant. It is therefore contended that since the amendment dated 09.04.2021 had only prospective effect, the earlier application submitted by the petitioner's mother could not have been considered. It was further contended before the Tribunal that since the death of the petitioner's father was on 07.09.2019 and the application in due format was filed only on 22.07.2021, the same was belated and could not have been considered in terms of the provisions of the Rules.

¶58

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:33936-DB WP No. 16640 of 2023

¶59

Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that after the death of the petitioner's father on 07.09.2019, her mother had made an application for compassionate appointment for the petitioner on 06.11.2019. The said application had been rejected by the Annexure - A7 on 10.12.2019 on the ground that the petitioner was the married daughter of the Government servant. The petitioner had challenged the said endorsement before the Tribunal in Application No.640/2020 and by judgment dated 03.03.2021, the said endorsement was set aside and application was directed to be considered without reference to the objection that petitioner was a married daughter. Immediately thereafter, petitioner submitted further representation on 15.03.2021, seeking reconsideration of the application. An application in format was also preferred on 22.07.2021 by the petitioner.

¶60

In the facts and circumstances as narrated above, we are of the opinion that the finding of the

¶61

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:33936-DB WP No. 16640 of 2023

¶62

Tribunal that the application in format dated 22.07.2021 was belated and clearly erroneous in view of the fact that the Tribunal itself had directed the consideration of the application of the petitioner without reference to the grounds that she is a married daughter of deceased Government servant.

¶63

In the specific facts and circumstances of

¶64

instant case, we are of the opinion that the finding of the Tribunal that the application in format dated 22.07.2021 was belated, is not justifiable. Further, in view of the fact that this Court in Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranik's case stated supra had specifically found that the provisions in the Rules, 1996 to the effect that married daughters were not eligible to apply for compassionate appointment was bad in law and had struck down the same, the contention that the amendment to the Rules dated 09.04.2021 was prospective would have no bearing on the legal situation since the offending provisions stood struck down by this

¶65

Court.

¶66

10 -

¶67

NC: 2024:KHC:33936-DB WP No. 16640 of 2023

¶68

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

¶69

opinion that the finding of the Tribunal to the effect that the petitioner's application dated 22.07.2021 could not be considered since the amendment dated 09.04.2021 had only prospective operation, cannot be countenanced. Hence, we pass the following:-

¶70

ORDER

¶71

i. The writ petition is allowed .

¶72

ii. The order of the Tribunal which is under challenge is set aside. Application preferred by the petitioner would stand allowed.

¶73

iii. There will be a direction to the respondents

¶74

to take up the application for compassionate appointment filed by the petitioner and to consider and pass orders on the same without raising the objection that the petitioner is a married daughter of the Government servant.

¶75

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:33936-DB WP No. 16640 of 2023

¶76

iv. All other aspects are left open to be decided in the application for compassionate

¶77

appointment. The said application shall be considered on its merits as directed above within a period of three months from today.

¶78

In view of the disposal of the main petition, pending I.A.No.1/2024 does not survive for consideration.

¶79

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶80

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶81

MH/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Smt. Meghashri v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Meghashri v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harshvardhan Raj M S Vs the Deputy Commissioner

S C Ramachandra Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Kalavathi. M Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Mamatha a v Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri Santhosh Kiragi Vs the State of Karnataka

Narendra Swain and Co. Vs M/S Skl Grapes