Allowed

Sri. Gowtham H R v. Commissioner

Karnataka HC18 Sept 2024WP/24251/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus for compassionate appointment after his father, a school employee, died in service. The private aided school conditioned consideration on conveyance of land. Court held this was no ground to deny relief and directed the school to forward the request within one month for approval by education authorities.

What did the court decide?

Writ allowed: school directed to forward compassionate appointment request within one month; respondents 2-3 to consider proposal within two months; failing which financial aid to school to be stopped

Sri. Gowtham H R Vs Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:39641 WP No. 24251 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 24251 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI GOWTHAM H R, S/O LATE L RANGANATHA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O HUILLDORE VILLAGE, BUKKABATTANA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572137.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI NARAYAN MAYYAR, ADVOCATE FOR

¶10

SRI S R HEGDE HUDLAMANE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, NEW PUBLIC OFFICE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, KR CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶13

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

JOINT DIRECTOR, PUBLIC EDUCATION HIGHER EDUCATION, NEW PUBLIC OFFICE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, KR CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶15

KSHETRA SHIKSHANA ADHIKARI (BEO), DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT 572137.

¶16

SRINIVAS VIDYAVARDHAKA PROUDHA SHALE HUILLDORE VILLAGE, BUKKABATTANA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572137, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRINCE ISAC, AGA FOR R1 TO R3, SRI R P SOMASHEKHARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39641 WP No. 24251 of 2023

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE R1 TO 3 AUTHORITIES AND R4 SCHOOL TO APPOINT THE PETITIONER TO PROVIDE A SUITABLE JOB TO THE PETITIONER AS A COMPASSIONATE GROUND.

¶20

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of Mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 4 to provide appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶23

The petitioner contends that his father was appointed as second divisional assistant at respondent No.4 on 12.10.1987. He died while in service on 28.10.2022. The petitioner's mother submitted a representation seeking family pension and appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds. The respondent No.4 in terms of its reply dated 28.03.2023, stated that the school was established on the land belonging to father of petitioner and therefore, the request for settlement of family pension and appointment on compassionate grounds would be considered only after the property was conveyed to respondent No.4. The managing committee of respondent No.4 restrained the principal of the respondent No.4 from processing

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39641 WP No. 24251 of 2023

¶25

the request of the petitioner until a deed of gift was executed by him. The petitioner therefore, approached the respondent Nos.1 to 3, requesting them for appointment on compassionate grounds. The Deputy Director of Public Instruction in terms of his endorsement dated 09.03.2023, directed the petitioner to get his request processed with the management of respondent No.4. The respondent No.3 issued an endorsement dated 28.06.2023, directing the petitioner to furnish a copy of the resolution of managing committee, the order of appointment and the documents as per checklist along with academic records for approval through respondent No.4. The petitioner contends that accordingly a request was submitted before respondent No.4 on 18.10.2023. However, the same is not considered till date. The petitioner is therefore before this Court, for an appropriate direction to respondents.

¶26

The petition is opposed by respondent No.4, who has filed a statement of objections contending that the father of the petitioner was appointed on 06.06.1989. It is contended that the father of petitioner, his wife and his brother had executed the documents dated 24.11.1983 and 27.03.2013, relinquishing a property in favour of respondent No.4. It is

¶27

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39641 WP No. 24251 of 2023

¶28

contended that based on the above, respondent No.4 constructed a building on the said property and the school is being run. It is contended that the father of the petitioner did not transfer the property to respondent No.4 and did not cooperate in the registration of a document to convey title in favour of the respondent no.4. The respondent No.4 submitted that the father of the petitioner died while in service. It is contended that the petitioner submitted an application for appointment on compassionate grounds with respondent No.4. It is contended that the petitioner, his mother and sister had executed a deed of confirmation dated 18.04.2023. Thereafter, petitioner submitted a representation with respondents seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 sought information from respondent No.4 about appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds. It is contended that respondent No.4 objected against appointing petitioner on compassionate grounds as he and his family members failed to execute necessary documents conveying the property in the name of respondent No.4 as per the confirmation deed dated 18.04.2023. It is contended that it is ready and willing to recommend the name of the petitioner for

¶29

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39641 WP No. 24251 of 2023

¶30

appointment on compassionate grounds, if the petitioner and his family members execute the necessary documents conveying the property to respondent No.4.

¶31

Learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the respondent No.3 has addressed a letter to the petitioner to forward the order of appointment on compassionate grounds through respondent No.4 along with the documents found in the check list and that his appointment would be considered for approval. He therefore submitted that, if the proposal is accepted by respondent No.4, respondent Nos.1 to 3 would consider approving the appointment in accordance with law.

¶32

It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner was appointed by respondent No.4 as second division assistant. It is not in dispute that he died during service, leaving behind the petitioner and his family members. The petitioner was therefore, entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds in accordance with proviso to Rule 3 (1) (a) of Karnataka Educational Institution (Recruitment and Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees in Private Aided Primary And

¶33

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:39641 WP No. 24251 of 2023

¶34

Secondary Educational Institutions) Rules, 1989. The contention of respondent No.4 that the father of the petitioner did not execute documents conveying the property to respondent No.4 cannot be a ground to deny the relief of appointment on compassionate grounds. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate grounds is to help the family to tide over the loss of an earning member. Therefore, the claim of the respondent No.4 that the request of the petitioner would be considered only after the petitioner and his family members conveyed the property in favour of respondent No.4 is no good ground to deny the appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶35

In that view of the matter and having regard to the fact that the father of the petitioner died in the year 2022, the delay in processing the request of the petitioner by respondent No.4 is unacceptable.

¶36

Consequently, the following order is passed;

¶37

i) W.P is allowed;

¶38

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:39641 WP No. 24251 of 2023

¶39

ii) The respondent No.4 is directed to forward the request of the petitioner to respondent Nos.1 to 3 within one month from today;

¶40

iii) The respondents Nos.2 and 3 shall consider the proposal forwarded by respondent No.4 within a period of two months thereafter.

¶41

iv) It is also made clear that the respondent No.4, if does not send the proposal within one month from today, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to forthwith stop all financial aid to the respondent No.4.

¶42

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶43

THM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Sri. Gowtham H R v. Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Gowtham H R v. Commissioner

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

Sri. Y. B. Raghavendra Vs the General Manager (a and Hr)

Shri Suraj Jayadeep Sunita Vs Vijaya Bank

Sri Santosh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ashwathanarayana T v Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.G.R.Narayanaswamy Vs the Deputy General Manager

Dr Sreedhara C G Vs State of Karnataka