Mr. Vinayaka Madenahalli Vs the Managing Director

10.07.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO-12032/2023 (S-KSRTC) AND ALLOW THE WP NO12032/2023 IN FULL BY APPOINTING PETITIONER ON COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS AND GRNAT SUCH OTHER AND RELIEF AS THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶25

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶29

The present writ appeal has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 10.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.12032/2023, whereby the learned Single Judge has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for a direction to the respondent-Corporation for giving him compassionate appointment.

¶30

The petitioner claims to be the adopted son of one Mr. Chandrappa Madenahalli, who was working as driver with the respondent-Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC).

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:41087-DB WA No. 1387 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Mr. Chandrappa Madenahalli died in harness on 22.02.2014. On the death of Mr. Chandrappa Madenahalli, his wife intimated the fact to the Corporation and the Corporation sent a letter dated 30.06.2014 informing the bereaved family that any of the family members could seek appointment on compassionate ground.

¶34

As per the averments in the writ petition as well as in this appeal, the appellant had made request for compassionate appointment on 13.02.2019, which was rejected by the respondent - Corporation on 08.05.2019. After rejection of said representation by the order dated 08.05.2019, the appellant had moved another representation on 02.08.2021, which was also rejected by the Corporation on 25.08.2021.

¶35

The appellant thereafter challenged these two orders by filing Writ Petition No.12032/2023. The learned Single Judge has rejected the claim of the appellant after considering the relevant policy of the Corporation which specifically prohibits appointment on compassionate

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:41087-DB WA No. 1387 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

ground to the adopted son or daughter. The said policy is based on the relevant rules of Government of Karnataka in respect of granting compassionate appointment.

¶39

The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that there is no raison d’etre for denying the employment to the adopted son. She further submits that the appellant had made the application for the compassionate appointment immediately after the demise of the father on 05.04.2014. She also submits that there was no delay in making the application for seeking compassionate appointment.

¶40

We must note that no such pleading of making

¶41

the application on 05.04.2014 by the appellant has been made either in the writ petition or in the memorandum of the writ appeal. Further, the averment is that the appellant has made the first application only on 13.02.2019 that is after five years from the date of demise of his father. The appellant has filed Original Suit No.81/2018 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur seeking

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41087-DB WA No. 1387 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

declaration that he was adopted son of late Chandrappa Madenahalli. That suit came to be decreed on 24.01.2019. It may be noted that suit was uncontested.

¶45

We find some substance in the submission of Smt.Renuka H.R., learned counsel for the respondentCorporation that the suit was filed only to get declaration to use it up to the government post which is a policy suit inasmuch as it remains uncontested. The policy of the Corporation itself provides for making an application for compassionate appointment within a period of one year from the date of the death of bread earner employee.

¶46

In this case as per the averments in the writ petition and the memorandum writ appeal, the first application was made after expiry of five years from the date of death of late Chandrappa Madenahalli while in harness .

¶47

It is well settled that the compassionate appointment is a welfare measure adopted by the

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:41087-DB WA No. 1387 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

employer/government/government agencies to save the bereaved family of an employee from the destitute and to overcome the financial difficulty which would arise because of the sudden demise of the bread earner of the family. It is not the vested right of a dependent of the deceased employee to seek the appointment at any point of time. The Supreme Court in Canara Bank vs. Ajith Kumar - 2025 SCC OnLine 290 has held at paragraph 11 (j) under :

¶51

"An application for compassionate appointment has to be made immediately upon death/incapacitation and in any case within a reasonable period thereof or else a presumption could be drawn that the family of the deceased/incapacitated employee is not in immediate need of financial assistance. Such appointment not being a vested right, the right to apply cannot be exercised at any time in future and it cannot be offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over [see Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Anil Badyakar23]."

¶52

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:41087-DB WA No. 1387 of 2024

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Considering the policy of the respondentCorporation, wherein it is provided that an adopted son or daughter would not be entitled for compassionate appointment as well as the considering the fact that the first application as per averments in the writ petition as well as in the memorandum of appeal was filed only on 13.02.2019 that is after five years from the date of death of the employee, we are of the view that the application filed by the appellant was also belatedly filed and such an application could not have been entertained by the Corporation. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Canara Bank (supra), we find no merit in this appeal which is why, it is dismissed .

¶55

SD/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶56

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶57

CR

¶58

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Mr. Vinayaka Madenahalli v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Vinayaka Madenahalli v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Manjegowda Vs the Divisional Controller

M/S Jamia Musjid and Muslim Vs the State of Karnataka

Narasimha Murthy Naik Vs J R Srinivas

M/S Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Vs Smt T Nalini

Sri. Kiran R.G. Vs Office of Zilla Panchayath

Sri M Ramaiah Vs the State of Karnataka