Allowed

Sri. Manikanta. N v. the Honble High Court of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2024WP/27039/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner's application for compassionate appointment after his father's death was rejected because his mother was employed as a Group-D employee. The Court held her income was far below the Rule 4 destitution threshold, so rejection on that ground was bad in law, restored the application for fresh consideration, and allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Rejection declared bad in law; application restored for reconsideration with liberty to file representation within four weeks.

Sri. Manikanta. N Vs the Honble High Court… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:27118 WP No. 27039 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 27039 OF 2019 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. MANIKANTA. N

¶9

S/O LATE R NANJUNDASWAMY AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/AT NO 929, RAMACHANDRA BUILDING, ARALIMARA BUS STOP HEGGANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, SUNKADAKATTE BENGALURU - 560091

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD Date: 2024.08.21 11:15:20 +0530

¶14

THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR (GENERAL) DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560001.

¶15

THE REGISTRAR CITY CIVIL COURT BENGALURU - 560009.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.M.S. RAJENDRA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOCALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS RELATING TO ISSUE OF IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.04.2019 PASSED BY R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-H REJECTING THE PETITIONER'S

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:27118 WP No. 27039 of 2019

¶21

APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND, AND AFTER PERUSAL SET ASIDE THE SAME; CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIOENR FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND ON THE BASIS OF APPLICATION FILED BY HIM ON 25.07.2018 VIDE ANENXURE-C IN TERMS OF THE KARNATAKA CIVIL SERVICES (APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND) RULES 1996 AS WELL AS GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 12.09.1996 AND DPAR AN DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE APPOINTMENT ORDER APPOINTING THE PETITIONER TO THE GROUP-D POST.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is aggrieved by the second respondent's Communication dated 25.04.2019 [ Annexure-H] . The second respondent by this Communication has informed the petitioner that the first respondent vide the order dated 23.04.2019 has rejected his application for compassionate appointment on the demise of his father, Sri R. Nanjundaswamy. The second respondent has also

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:27118 WP No. 27039 of 2019

¶27

informed the petitioner that the original records furnished along with the application will be returned.

¶28

The undisputed facts are as follows. The petitioner's father, Sri R. Nanjundaswamy, was a Group - D employee with the second respondent and he has died on 29.04.2018. Sri R. Nanjundaswamy’s widow [ and the petitioner's mother ] Smt. Rukminiyamma, is employed as a Group - D but with the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Establishment at Bangalore. Sri R. Nanjundaswamy is also survived by his two daughters and the petitioner [the son]. The petitioner contends that his two sisters were unmarried as of the date of the father's demise, that though he has studied up to tenth standard he is without employment and that the entire family is depending upon the income of his mother after Sri. R. Nanjundaswamy’s demise.

¶29

Sri Vijaya Kumar, the learned counsel for

¶30

the petitioner, has argued against the impugned

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:27118 WP No. 27039 of 2019

¶32

Communication dated 25.04.2019 [ Annexure-H ] on two grounds:

¶33

[a] the petitioner's application is rejected without even being informed about the reasons for such rejection;

¶34

[b] the petitioner apprehends that the application is rejected because his mother is in employment with the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Establishment at Bengaluru, and

¶35

[c] the application could not have been rejected on such ground because of the provisions of Rule 4 of the Karnataka Civil Services [Appointment on Compassionate Grounds] Rules 1996 [for short, 'the Rules' ].

¶36

In the light of these submissions, the respondents are called upon to place on record the original file, and in

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:27118 WP No. 27039 of 2019

¶38

compliance with this Court's direction, the original file in LAC-II-541/2018 was placed before this Court on 09.07.2024.

¶39

This Court has seen from the file that the first respondent has decided to reject the petitioner's application, as apprehended by the petitioner, on the ground that his mother was in employment with the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Establishment, Bengaluru and that her annual income is in a sum of Rs.3,16,188/-. The reasons assigned also refer to a sum of Rs.6,11,868/-, and therefore, the respondents were called upon to place on record the computation of this amount.

¶40

Sri M. S. Rajendra, the learned counsel for

¶41

the respondents, in response, submits that the sum of Rs.6,11,868/- is the combined value of the average of the minimum and maximum of the scale of pay admissible to the post of First Division Assistant [Rs.40,150/- per month] and Dearness Allowances,

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:27118 WP No. 27039 of 2019

¶43

House Rent Allowance and City Compensatory Allowance at Bengaluru. When queried, Sri. M.S. Rajendra submits that given the provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules, Dearness Allowances, House Rent Allowance and City Compensatory Allowance at Bengaluru will be relevant for the purposes of Rule 4, and therefore, that has been considered.

¶44

Sri Vijaya Kumar submits that as of the date of the impugned Communication dated 25.04.2019, the provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules stipulated that the family of a deceased Government Servant [ even if an Group - C or Group - D employee ] shall be considered to be in financial crisis or destitution if the recurring monthly income of the family from all sources is less than the total emoluments [including Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance and City Compensatory Allowance admissible at Bangalore] admissible to the post of First Division Assistant but excluding family pension

¶45

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:27118 WP No. 27039 of 2019

¶46

and other lumpsum pensionary benefits and the interest earned thereon. The learned counsel submits that with the Notification dated 09.04.2021 Rule 4 is amended to include the proviso insofar as Group-D and Group-C State Government Employee to read that this will not apply to an applicant/ dependent of such employees.

¶47

The provisions of Rule 4(1) - Explanation

¶48

(a) reads as under:

¶49

4. Conditions of appointment: -

¶50

Appointment on compassionate grounds under these rules shall be subject to the following conditions, namely.

¶51

(1) The family of the deceased Government servant should be in a financial crisis or destitution.

¶52

Explanation:

¶53

(a) Family of a deceased Government servant shall be considered to be in financial crisis or destitution if the recurring monthly income of the family from all sources is less than the total emoluments including Dearness

¶54

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:27118 WP No. 27039 of 2019

¶55

Allowance, House Rent Allowance and City Compensatory Allowance admissible at Bangalore on the average of the minimum and the maximum of the scale of pay of the post of First Division Assistant, as on the date of making application for compassionate appointment. For calculating such monthly income, the income from family pension, lumpsum pensionary benefits and interest earned thereon shall be excluded.

¶56

By the notification dated 09.04.2021 proviso to

¶57

this Explanation is added to read as follows .

¶58

Provided that nothing in Sub-rule (1) shall apply to the Government servant belonging to Group-C and Group-D posts.

¶59

8. This Court, on reading the aforesaid

¶60

provisions, must observe that the provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules are categorical in stipulating that for the purposes of considering whether the family of a deceased Government is in financial crisis or destitution , the income of such family [from all

¶61

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:27118 WP No. 27039 of 2019

¶62

sources] must be less than not just the average of minimum and maximum of scale pay of the First Division Assistant but should also be less then this value and the value of the Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance and City Conveyance Allowance at Bengaluru. This Rule is amended with effect from 09.04.2021 stipulating that this stipulation would not be applicable when the deceased is either a Group D or Group C employee.

¶63

The petitioner cannot draw any support from this amendment vide the Notification dated 09.04.2021 because, admittedly, the petitioner’s application is prior to this date. Therefore, the question whether the petitioner's family should have been considered to be in financial crisis or destitution must be examined in the light of the provisions of Rule 4 as it stood on the date of the petitioner’s application, the income of the petitioner's mother as a Group-D employee with the Chief Metropolitan

¶64

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:27118 WP No. 27039 of 2019

¶65

Magistrate Establishment, Bengaluru and the

¶66

respondents' response otherwise.

¶67

The salary slip of the petitioner's mother for the month of February 2019 is produced. It is seen that the petitioner's mother, as of this month, was drawing a sum of Rs.34,826/- as Gross Salary including Rs.26,400/- as Basic Pay, Rs.990/- as Dearness Allowance, Rs.6,336/- as House Rent Allowance and Rs.500/as City Conveyance Allowance. If the petitioner's mother was drawing a sum of Rs.34,826/- per month as Gross income, it remains beyond the dispute that it would be far less than Rs.6,11,868/-¹ . Hence, this Court must opine that if otherwise permissible, the petitioner's family should be considered as being in financial crisis or

¶68

1 The combined value of the average of the minimum and maximum of the scale of pay admissible to the post of First Division Assistant [Rs.40,150/- per month] and the permissible Dearness Allowances, House Rent Allowance and City Compensatory Allowance at Bengaluru

¶69

NC: 2024:KHC:27118 WP No. 27039 of 2019

¶70

11 -

¶71

destitution notwithstanding the fact that the

¶72

petitioner’s mother is employed as a Group-D employee with the establishment as aforesaid.

¶73

However, Sri M.S. Rajendra opposes even

¶74

such consideration on the following grounds.

¶75

[a] The right to compassionate appointment, as is specifically stated in Rule 3 of the Rules, is not a matter of right to be given as a matter of course and there cannot be

¶76

any inference of the family being financial crisis or destitution. Reliance is placed on

¶77

the decision of this Court in Sandesh v.

¶78

The Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and

¶79

Ors² .

¶80

[b] The petitioner cannot assert a right because it is shown that a member of his family is gainfully employed . The

¶81

2 In W.P.No.34131/2014, disposed of on 07.09.2015.

¶82

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:27118 WP No. 27039 of 2019

¶83

appointment on compassionate ground must be subject to hierarchy as is mentioned in Sub-rule (2) of this Rule, and the Rules stipulate priority with the widow of the deceased being given precedence over other dependents including the son, and that the son could make an application only if the widow is not eligible or for any valid reason or she is not willing to accept the appointment.

¶84

There cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that compassionate appointments cannot be claimed as a right or be given as a matter of course. However, the provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules stipulate that the family of a deceased government servant shall be considered to be in financial crisis [or destitution] if the recurring monthly income of his family [from all sources ] is below the prescribed threshold. The provisions of Rule 4 must

¶85

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:27118 WP No. 27039 of 2019

¶86

be read harmoniously with the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules, and these provisions cannot be read in isolation without the Rules indicating the same. If these Rules are read harmoniously, this Court's considered view is that the family of a deceased Government servant shall be considered to be in financial crisis or destitution if the monthly income of his family is below the prescribed threshold.

¶87

This position could be different post the amendment vide Notification dated 09.04.2021 insofar as the families of the deceased Group D and C employees who die in harness, but for the period prior to such Notification the position remains the same. If it is shown that the recurring monthly income of the family is below the threshold in terms of the Explanation [a] to Rule 4[1], this Court must opine that a case is made out for due consideration in the premise that a right to compassionate appointment is established. The petitioner's mother

¶88

14 - NC: 2024:KHC:27118 WP No. 27039 of 2019

¶89

was drawing salary much below the threshold even as computed strictly in terms of the Rule 4[1] - Explanation [a] of the Rules. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner's application could not have been rejected only on the ground that his mother was employed as Group-D with the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Establishment, Bengaluru.

¶90

The petition to this extent must be favoured but the respondents must consider whether the petitioner would be eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds otherwise, and in this regard the respondents must necessarily consider the fact that the petitioner even as of the date of the application was 21 years old and this litigation has prevailed over a period of five years and therefore it is possible that the petitioner could have found gainful employment not necessarily with the State

¶91

15 - NC: 2024:KHC:27118 WP No. 27039 of 2019

¶92

Government or the instrumentalities of the State.

¶93

Hence, the following:

¶94

ORDER

¶95

[a] The petition is allowed. The decision to

¶96

reject the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment on the ground that his mother [the deceased's widow] was in employment as of the date of the application with the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Establishment, Bengaluru is declared bad in law.

¶97

[b] The petitioner's application is restored for reconsideration subject to the observation as aforesaid. The petitioner, to avail the benefit of reconsideration, is reserved with liberty to file a representation enclosing a certified copy of this order within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified of such order. The first

¶98

NC: 2024:KHC:27118 WP No. 27039 of 2019

¶99

16 -

¶100

respondent shall decide on the same

¶101

expeditiously.

¶102

Sd/(B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶103

SA ct:sr

Sri. Manikanta. N v. the Honble High Court of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Manikanta. N v. the Honble High Court 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

Siddartha Vs Union of India

Sri. Krishna Vs the Commissioner

Sri Chandrashekar Hegde Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Gowramma a Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri C N Narayan Vs the State of Karnataka by Its

Sri. Puran Kumar Agarwalla Vs the Union of India