Allowed

Smt. Anuradha M.N. v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Jun 2024WP/4560/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Widow sought compassionate appointment after her husband died in harness at Bengaluru Medical College and Research Institute. The court found the institute had failed to frame Byelaws on compassionate appointment despite government directions, held the 1996 Rules must apply subject to State approval, and directed consideration of her eligibility within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Second respondent directed to consider petitioner's eligibility for compassionate appointment per the 1996 Rules within eight weeks; liberty to file certified copy within four weeks.

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

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:22999 WP No. 4560 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4560 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. ANURADHA M.N. WIFE OF LATE C NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT KAREPURA VILLAGE, DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK 561203 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. FAYAZ SAB B.G., ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, M S BUILDING,

¶14

BENGALURU 560001

¶15

THE DIRECTOR AND DEAN

¶16

BENGALURU MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE,

¶17

FORT, KRISHNA RAJENDRA ROAD, NEAR CITY MARKET,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:22999 WP No. 4560 of 2024

¶20

BENGALURU 560002

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. PRINCE ISAC, AGA FOR R1; SRI. SIDHARTH BABURAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER FOR APPOINTMENT/RECRUITMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND, PURSUANT TO THE APPLICATION/REPRESENTATION DTD 06.05.2021 WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-K.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner has lost her husband on

¶27

11.04.2021. According to the petitioner, her husband has died leaving behind herself, her minor son and his aged parents. The petitioner contends that she has filed her application for appointment on compassionate grounds on 06.05.2021, and because her application is not considered, this Court must

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:22999 WP No. 4560 of 2024

¶30

direct the second respondent to issue orders for appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶31

Sri. Fayaz Sab B.G., the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has filed her application in time and her application has been considered by the second respondent only to file a report with the first respondent to say that the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 [for short, ' the 1996 Rules' ] is not incorporated in the second respondent's Byelaws. The learned counsel submits that the second respondent has forwarded the petitioner's application for appropriate decision by the first respondent.

¶32

Sri. Fayaz Sab B.G argues that the petitioner has successfully completed her PreUniversity Education with first class after completing her Secondary Education in the month of March 1998, and that the petitioner has also relied upon

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:22999 WP No. 4560 of 2024

¶35

Domicile Certificate and the Certificate to indicate that none in her family are in any employment with the Government. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner in these circumstances is entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds

¶36

When Sri. Prince Isac, the learned Additional Government Advocate is heard in the light of the afore canvass, he invites this Court's attention to the Government's order dated 21.12.2020. The learned Government Advocate also submits that this Court may consider that the Government has issued direction to all the autonomous bodies, including the second respondent, to draw up Memorandum of Association/Articles of Association without doing violence to the provisions of the 1996 Rules and subject to such changes as would be necessary.

¶37

The second respondent, as is obvious from

¶38

its Report dated 30.09.2023, notwithstanding this direction by the State Government, has not drawn up

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:22999 WP No. 4560 of 2024

¶40

its Memorandum of Association/Articles of Association to provide for compassionate appointments. In the least, the second respondent should have evolved its policy one way or the other. The fall out of second respondent’s failure to evolve a policy must be that if an employee dies in harness, his/her dependent, especially with the Government directing that Byelaws must be drawn without doing violence to the 1996 Rules, must be extended the opportunity for appointment on compassionate grounds. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that unless specific Byelaws with modifications to the 1996 Rules are drawn, the second respondent must necessarily consider such request in accordance with such Rules but subject to the approval of the State Government. Hence, the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

a) The petition is allowed directing the

¶43

second respondent - the Director and

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:22999 WP No. 4560 of 2024

¶45

Dean, Bengaluru Medical College and Research Institute - to consider the petitioner's eligibility for appointment on compassionate grounds in the light of the provisions of the 1996 Rules within a period of eight [8] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶46

b) The petitioner, to facilitate such consideration, is reserved with liberty to file a certified copy of this order with the second respondent within four [4] from the date of receipt of such copy.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

Smt. Anuradha M.N. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Anuradha M.N. 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

Smt S B Hoovamma W/O Nanjesh Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Geetha B a Haveri Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. N.C. Cheluvaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Shivakumar Vs the State of Karnataka

D. Basavaraja Vs Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd.

R Shanmukappa Vs the General Manager