Disposed

Jagadeesh S/O. Veerayya Karisiddimath v. the General Manager

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2024WP/70385/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought compassionate appointment to Vijaya Bank after his father's death in service in 2000, relying on an earlier Division Bench ruling. The court found that case distinguishable as the Bank there had itself recommended the appointment; here the mother's request stood rejected and Ex gratia offers were declined. Petition disposed of with liberty to seek Ex gratia relief.

What did the court decide?

None granted; liberty to make representation seeking Ex gratia amount for consideration by the Bank.

Jagadeesh S/O. Veerayya Karisiddimath Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7714 WP No. 70385 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO.70385/2012(S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

JAGADEESH S/O. VEERAYYA KARISIDDIMATH, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: BASAWESHWAR NAGAR, NEAR VEERABHADRSWHAR TEMPLE, GADAG, TQ AND DIST: GADAG.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI S.B.DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE GENERAL MANAGER, PERSONAL DEPARTMENT, (HRD) VIJAYA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT NO.PER:HRD:RCT:4986:2012 DATED 12.06.2012 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24.05.2012 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7714 WP No. 70385 of 2012

¶17

THE PETITIONER ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND TO MEET OUT THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC.,

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the endorsement dated 12.06.2012 as per Annexure-G issued by the respondent-Bank and for issuance of writ of mandamus to the respondent to consider the representation dated 24.05.2012 as per Annexure-F for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground.

¶21

Case of the petitioner is that his father Sri. Veerayya was working in the respondent-Bank as a peon and he died on 29.03.2000 while he was in service. The petitioner is the eldest son of late Veerayya. The said Verayya had left behind his wife, petitioner and youngest daughter and that there are no earning members in the family of the petitioner. That the sudden death of their father had caused financial hardship at the time of his death. At the time of death of his father, petitioner was

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7714 WP No. 70385 of 2012

¶23

pursuing his studies in PUC. As such, his mother had made an application to the respondent on 11.09.2000 seeking providing of any suitable appointment in the establishment of the respondent-Bank. The respondent-Bank did not take any action for a very long time on the representation made by the petitioner’s mother. As such, the mother of the petitioner had made one more representation requesting them to consider her representation in accordance with law.

¶24

That in response to the said oral representation on 09.06.2005 the respondent-Bank had issued an endorsement stating that there is no scheme for providing employment on the compassionate ground. As such, they were unable to consider her request.

¶25

It is further contended that the respondentBank had however forwarded a scheme providing for Ex gratia relief in lieu of compassionate appointment. The said offer was not acceptable to the petitioner as the petitioner was in need of employment. That finally the petitioner gave representation on 24.05.2012 to which

¶26

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7714 WP No. 70385 of 2012

¶27

vague and untenable reply was issued by the respondentBank stating that her request would not fall under the scheme in force. Constraining the petitioner to approach this Court.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner apart from reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition placing reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed in Writ Appeal No.3824/2000 dated 12.08.2003, submits that in an identical facts and circumstance of the matter, the Division Bench of this

¶29

Court had directed the Vijaya Bank, who was appellant in that matter, to take the private respondent therein on compassionate appointment in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner in the instant case is also similarly situated with that of the private respondent in the said case. He further submits that the respondent-Bank therefore cannot discriminate between the petitioner herein and respondent therein. Hence, emphatically

¶31

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7714 WP No. 70385 of 2012

¶32

submits that the respondent-Bank be directed to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner herein.

¶33

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank taking this Court through the records submits that the request of the mother of the petitioner for compassion appointment was rejected and the same was communicated as early as on 09.06.2005 as per Annexure-B.

¶34

Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank further submits that thereafter considering the fact that the father of the petitioner had rendered his services to the growth of Bank by communication dated 21.09.2010, the respondent-Bank had offered to pay Ex gratia relief in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds, which offer was declined by the mother of the petitioner.

¶35

Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank further submits that subsequently by another communication dated 25.01.2011, the Bank had provided yet another opportunity to the mother of the petitioner to avail the Ex gratia relief and had also made clear that if

¶36

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7714 WP No. 70385 of 2012

¶37

the said option was not available on or before the 15.02.2011, the said offer would not be available thereafter.

¶38

Thus, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank further submits that the request of the mother of the petitioner could not be entertained for want of rules providing for such appointment. The mother of the petitioner did not avail the offer of payment of Ex gratia amount.

¶39

Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank

¶40

submits that all these developments have taken place during the years 2005 and 2011, and the Writ Petition is filed in the year 2012 seeking the relief which have now become stale and infructuous by passage of time. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition.

¶41

Heard and perused the records.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits

¶43

that as on the date when the application was filed for seeking appointment on compassionate ground, there was neither any rule nor any scheme prevalent in the

¶44

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7714 WP No. 70385 of 2012

¶45

respondent-Bank providing for appointment on compassionate ground.

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioner however, heavily relies upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.3824/2000 and vehemently submits that in the said case, Bank itself had recommended for appointment of compassionate ground and taking note of the conduct of the Bank, the Division Bench had directed the Bank to appoint the respondent therein under compassionate ground in exercise of its power under Article 226 of Constitution of India, and similar benefit be extended to the petitioners.

¶47

This Court is not inclined to accept the said submission. Necessary to note that in the case relied upon by the petitioner is that the Bank itself had recommended for appointment on compassionate ground to the Central Government. The Central Government had apparently declined to accept the recommendation made by the Bank in view of inquiry that was initiated against the deceased employee in the said proceedings.

¶48

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7714 WP No. 70385 of 2012

¶49

Subsequently, upon the petition filed by the legal representative diseased employee in the said case, the Court had directed the Bank to grant appointment on compassionate grant. Upon the appeal filed by the Bank against the said order, the Division Bench of this Court taking note of the earlier recommendation made by the Bank itself held that the Bank had no locus stand to question the order as the Bank itself had recommended for appointment on compassionate ground and it was under those peculiar circumstances the Division Bench of this Court had confirmed the order passed by a Single Judge.

¶50

Contrary to the above said facts and circumstances in the instant case, an application that was filed by the wife of deceased employee by name Nirmala was rejected by the Bank and the same was communicated to the said Nirmala by communication dated 09.06.2005 and the said communication has remained unchallenged till date.

¶51

Records reveal that the Bank on its own had come forward and offered Ex gratia amount in the year

¶52

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7714 WP No. 70385 of 2012

¶53

2010 i.e., five years after the rejection of request of the petitioner’s mother for appointment on compassionate ground. Thereafter, by yet another communication in the year 2011, the Bank again called upon the wife of deceased employee to opt for Ex gratia on or before 15.02.2011, which has also declined by the wife of the deceased employee.

¶54

It is only in the year 2012 the present petition is filed by the son of the deceased who by the said time had even attained the age of 27 years. The endorsement has been issued stating that no scheme available. As per the scheme which is now prevalent, which has come into force on and after 2007 the consideration for compassionate appointment can only be made on the grounds namely, employee dying while performing his official duty as a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoit and or employee dying within five years of his first appointment or before reaching the age of 30 years, whichever is later leaving a dependent spouse and a or minor children.

¶55

10 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7714 WP No. 70385 of 2012

¶56

It is necessary to note that the very purpose of granting compassionate appointment is to see that the dependents/family members of the deceased are given solacium in view of the financial hardship faced by them on account of demise of the working member of the family. In the instant case, though there was no scheme for granting compassionate appointment, the Bank had offered Ex gratia amount which was declined. Further, the petitioners have managed for over twelve years as in the date of filing of the petition and twenty five years as on

¶57

this date, negating the very purpose of the compassionate appointment.

¶58

View from any angle the petitioners have not made out any ground warranting interference.

¶59

Needless to state since the respondent-Bank had voluntarily offered to pay the Ex gratia amount to the wife of deceased employee, the petitioner may make an representation seeking Ex gratia amount which may be considered by the respondent-Bank if permissible.

¶60

11 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7714 WP No. 70385 of 2012

¶61

Accordingly, petition is disposed off.

¶62

SD/-

¶63

JUDGE

¶64

SMM/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

Jagadeesh S/O. Veerayya Karisiddimath v. the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagadeesh S/O. Veerayya Karisiddimath v. the General Manager

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

Sri.Ashwinkumar S/O. Prahlad Pise Vs Smt.Jayalaxmi W/O. Ashwinkumar Pise

Praveen S/O Ishwar Chavan Vs Mrs Vaishnavi W/O Praveen Chavan

Mr.Venkatraman D Hegde Vs the State of Karnataka

V. Eranna S/O.Nagappa Vs Pragati Grameena Bank

The Management of Nwkrtc Vs Shamshuddin S/O Hasansab Attar

Shamidabi Vs the Deputy Commissioner Koppal