Partly allowed

Chetana v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2024WP/17804/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the petition in part, quashing the rejection of compassionate appointment on the ground that Rules were framed after the husband's death. The respondents were directed to consider the application afresh and ensure payment for services already rendered.

What did the court decide?

Quashed impugned endorsement; directed respondents to consider compassionate appointment afresh and pay for services rendered so far.

Chetana Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:45031 WP No. 17804 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 17804 OF 2023 (LB-RES)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

CHETANA W/O PRABHAKAR A AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC LIBRARY SUPERVISOR, GP LIBRARY RAJAGONDANAHALLI TQ CHANNAGIRI DISTRICT DAVANAGERE 577 213.

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. GIRISH V BHAT.,ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, 3^rd FLOOR, MS BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGLAURU 560 001.

¶11

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYAT, DAVANGERE 577 004.

¶12

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYAT,

¶13

¶14

NC: 2024:KHC:45031 WP No. 17804 of 2023

¶15

CHENNAGIRI TALUK

¶16

DIST DAVANGERE 577 213.

¶17

THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPEMENT OFFICER RAJAGONDANAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT TQ CHENNAGIRI

¶18

DIST DAVANAGERE 577 213.

¶19

THE CHIEF LIBRARIAN DISTRICT CENTRAL LIBRARY SBM BUILDING DAVANGERE DIST DAVANGERE 577 004.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.RAHUL CARIAPPA., AGA FOR R1 AND R5; R2 TO R4 ARE SERVED)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED REPLY GIVEN BY THE R-2 BEARING NO. GPAMDA AA (29) CR 02/2023-24 DATED 26.07.2023 VIDE ANNX-A TO THE WP; DIRECTING THE R-2 TO CONTINUE THE SERVICE OF PETITIONER AS LIBRARY SUPERVISOR UNDER COMPASSIONATE GROUND.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:45031 WP No. 17804 of 2023

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioner's husband, Sri Prabhakar A, was working as a Library Supervisor with Rajagondanahalli Grama Panchayath Library from 30.06.1999, and he has breathed his last in harness on 02.03.2020. The petitioner has filed a representation which is considered by the Panchayath resolving to permit the petitioner to work as a Library Superintendent on compassionate grounds. The fifth respondent has issued notification dated 12.10.2021 notifying the post of Library Supervisor with the Rajagondanahalli Grama Panchayath Library for recruitment.

¶29

The petitioner is informed by the Communication dated 15.12.2020 that her request for compassionate appointment is rejected by the Grama Panchayath’s resolution. The petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P. No.20489/2021 impugning the Communication dated 15.12.2020.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:45031 WP No. 17804 of 2023

¶32

This Court, by the Order dated 24.11.2022, has directed the Zilla Panchayath/Taluk Panchayath and its officers to consider the petitioner's case for appointment on compassionate grounds in view of the submission that when the petitioner was issued with Communication dated 15.12.2020 there were no

¶33

rules for compassionate appointment but subsequently Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayath Raj [Panchayat Library and Information Center Supervisors] Rules, 2022 [for short, the ' 2022 Rules '] are notified and Rule 22 of these Rules provide for compassionate appointment.

¶34

The petitioner is issued with the impugned Endorsement dated 26.07.2023 [ Annexure -A ] stating that because her husband had died prior to the notification of the Rules, she cannot be granted the compassionate appointment. This Court on 05.09.2023 has granted interim order directing the second respondent not to disturb the petitioner's

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:45031 WP No. 17804 of 2023

¶37

services pursuant to the Panchayath's resolution dated 18.06.2020. It is stated that the petitioner continues in service as Library Supervisor with Rajagondanahalli Panchayath, Bengaluru. The relevant facts are undisputed, but the question for consideration is whether the authorities could have refused the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment on the ground that the relevant Rules were not notified as on the date the petitioner's husband died.

¶38

The petitioner, immediately after the death of her husband in the month of March 2020, has approached the Grama Panchayath which by its resolution dated 18.06.2020 has permitted the petitioner to work as Library Supervisor on compassionate ground and the petitioner continues to work accordingly even as of now. The petitioner's request for appointment on compassionate ground, after the notification dated 12.10.2021, is rejected on

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:45031 WP No. 17804 of 2023

¶41

the ground that there were no Rules for such appointment.

¶42

When it is pointed out to this Court in the earlier writ proceedings in W.P. No.20489/2021 that the Government has notified the Rules providing for compassionate appointment with the Grama Panchayaths, this Court has opined that the respondents concerned are required to consider the petitioner's case for appointment on compassionate grounds under the Rules. This Court's conclusion in this regard reads as under:

¶43

"The above rule provides for consideration of dependants of the deceased employees working as Librarian and Library Supervisors for compassionate appointment. In view of the above rule, the respondents are required to reconsider the case of the petitioner. Therefore, without reference to Annexures A and B, respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in accordance with 2022 Rules."

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:45031 WP No. 17804 of 2023

¶46

This conclusion has not been called in

¶47

question. This Court is of the view that, if the petitioner is appointed on compassionate grounds [though temporarily] without the rules helping her to tide over the immediate financial constraint, and she is accordingly continued even as of today over a period of twelve – thirteen years, it would not be permissible [ especially with this Court’s observation as aforesaid ] to contend that she will not be entitled to appointment because the Rules have been framed later. The impugned Endorsement dated 26.07.2023 must yield, and the second to fourth respondents must be directed to consider the petitioner's case afresh without in any manner disturbing her continuance in work.

¶48

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not paid remuneration regularly. This Court must observe that the second to fourth respondents cannot insist

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:45031 WP No. 17804 of 2023

¶51

upon the petitioner to continue the work without paying regularly and she must be paid for the services rendered thus far. Hence, the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(A) The petition is allowed in part quashing the

¶54

impugned Endorsement dated 26.07.2023 [ Annexure - A ] directing the second to fourth respondents to consider the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment qua her qualifications and other parameters but independent of the fact that her husband has died just before the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayath Raj [Panchayat Library and Information Center Supervisors] Rules, 2022 are framed.

¶55

[b] The second to fourth respondents, upon receipt of a certified copy of this order, are directed to ensure that the petitioner is paid for her services so far in terms of the initial appointment subject to permissible revision.

¶56

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:45031 WP No. 17804 of 2023

¶57

[c] The petitioner will be at liberty to file a

¶58

representation for appointment on compassionate grounds and payment of remuneration for the services that were

¶59

rendered so far along with a copy of this order within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of this order and if the petitioner files a representation, as aforesaid, the second to fourth respondents shall consider both the aspects and communicate the decision to the petitioner within a period of three [3] months from the date of receipt of such representation.

¶60

Consequently, the application [IA.1/2023] stands disposed of.

¶61

SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶62

Chetana v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chetana 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

Shashikala Vs the Tahsildar

Smt. Umadevi. M Vs the State of Karnataka

Iffath Wasim Vs the Commissioner

Mr. M R Seetharam Vs Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri Ganesh D Vs the Commissioner

M/S Provident Welworth City Apartment Owners Association (Regd) Vs the State of Karnataka