Dismissed

Uma Satish Kamble v. the Chairman and Managing Director

Karnataka HC13 Aug 2024WP/78103/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought compassionate appointment or ex-gratia payment for the family of a deceased employee. The court held that the employee died due to heart attack off-duty, not violence, and the family income exceeded the scheme's threshold. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; no appointment or ex-gratia amount was directed.

Uma Satish Kamble Vs the Chairman and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:11626 WP No. 78103 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO.78103 OF 2013 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

UMA SATISH KAMBLE, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: PLOT NO.293, SECTOR NO.2 SHIVABASA NAGAR, BELAGAVI.

¶8

PRASHANT SATISH KAMBLE, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: PLOT NO. 293, SECTOR NO. 2 SHIVABASAV NAGAR, BELAGAVI.

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI VIJAY K. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, 1501, SHIVAJI NAGAR, PUNE – 410 005.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

(BY SRI C.V.ANGADI, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED 28/02/2013 AT ANNEXURE-K OF THE RESPONDENT. WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO APPOINT PETITIONER NO.2 ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND PROVIDING A SUITABLE JOB AS PER HIS QUALIFICATION OR GRANT EX-GRATIA IN LIEU OF COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC-D:11626 WP No. 78103 of 2013

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

Challenging communication dated 28.02.2013 at Annexure-K issued by respondent and seeking for writ of mandamus directing respondent to consider petitioners’ case for appointment on compassionate ground or for grant of ex-gratia amount in lieu thereof, this writ petition is filed.

¶22

Sri Vijay K.Nayak, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that husband of petitioner no.1 and father of petitioner no.2 - Sri Satish Gopal Kamble was working as Attender in Khasbag Branch of respondent - Bank at Belagavi. He was a permanent employee and died on 10.01.2008 leaving behind petitioners as his legal heirs. It was submitted, deceased employee had three children at time of his death and family was exposed to penury and hardship. Therefore petitioners had filed applications for consideration of appointment on compassionate grounds. Same was rejected earlier by communication dated 12.04.2008 by stating that unless employee were to have died as a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity, while performing duty, in no other instance claim for compassionate appointment could

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC-D:11626 WP No. 78103 of 2013

¶25

be made. Said endorsement was challenged before this Court in W.P.no.31644/2008, which was disposed of on 02.07.2012 directing re-consideration, in light of provisions for payment of lump-sum amount in lieu of compassionate appointment. In pursuance thereof, respondent had issued impugned communication.

¶26

It was submitted, while passing impugned order, respondent had not taken note of fact that deceased left behind wife and three children and their survival in meager amount of family pension sanctioned was extremely difficult. On above grounds sought for allowing writ petition.

¶27

On other hand, Sri C.V.Angadi, learned counsel for respondent sought to oppose writ petition. It was submitted, extant scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds was limited to only those cases where death of employee was as a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity, while on duty and not otherwise.

¶28

Admittedly, death of Sri Satish Gopal Kamble was not while on duty or due to said reasons. Insofar as

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC-D:11626 WP No. 78103 of 2013

¶31

consideration for payment of lump-sum amount, scheme limited to said right also only to those whose family income “post death were not more than 60% of last drawn salary of deceased”. It was submitted, computation made by respondent as per scheme would indicate that last drawn gross salary of Satish Gopal Kamble was Rs.12,759/- and 60% would be Rs.7,655.87/- whereas monthly income of petitioners was Rs.9,231/-, therefore endorsement was fully justified and did not call for any interference. On above grounds sought for dismissal of writ petition.

¶32

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition

¶33

record.

¶34

From above, rejection of petitioners’ application for appointment on compassionate grounds as well as consideration of their claim for payment of ex-gratia is by reference to provisions of scheme. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Himachal Pradesh and another Vs. Parkash Chand reported in (2019) 4 SCC 285 has held, claim for compassionate appointment cannot be as a matter of right and would be subject to provisions of scheme. Admittedly, death of Satish Gopal Kamble was

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC-D:11626 WP No. 78103 of 2013

¶37

not as a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity, while in service. He died due to heart attack, while off duty. Further there is no dispute about computation of monthly income of family as tabulated in impugned order. Admittedly, if monthly income is above 60% of last drawn gross salary of deceased, petitioners’ claim would be barred. Consequently impugned endorsement cannot be faulted.

¶38

Hence, writ petition is dismissed.

¶39

Sd/(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶40

EM CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Uma Satish Kamble v. the Chairman and Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uma Satish Kamble v. the Chairman and Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.H.v.Mangala D/O.Veerappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Mallavva W/O Siddalingappa Naikar Vs the Accountant Officer

Sri a Sree Ramulu S/O Late Sri B Thimmappa Vs Shri B Balasubramanyam S/O Late B Laxminarayana Sharma

Dr. Poornima S/ Hebbar Vs the Secretary

Smt Rekha S W/O Ambarishaiah. G Vs Shri Ambarsihaiah G S/O Gundaiah Tondehal Hiremath

Smt. Shaihinaj W/O Late Abdulrazak Dharwad Vs the Superintendent Engineer (v)