Mahalaxmi D/O Kempanna Shigiholi Vs the State of Karnataka

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ 3^RD FLOOR, MS BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001

¶14

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYAT BELAGAVI-590001

¶15

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYAT, GOKAK TALUK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 2018

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC-D:18148 WP No. 100462 of 2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER NANDAGAV GRAM PANCHAYAT TQ: GOKAK,

¶20

DIST: BELAGAVI-591231

¶21

THE CHIEF LIBRARIAN DISTRICT CENTRAL LIBRARY

¶22

BELAGAVI-590001

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1 AND R5; SRI. SHIVARAJ V. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R2 TO R4)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR A DIRECTION OR AN APPROPRIATE ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT BEARING NO. GIPAMBE/ AADALITA/ GRANTALAYA/ VIVA 25/2023-24 DATED 20.12.2023 DECLINING TO EXTEND THE BENEFIT OF COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT TO THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND ETC.,

¶26

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

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶29

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the

¶30

following prayer:

¶31

I. Issue a writ or a direction or an appropriate order in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned endorsement issued by the 2nd respondent bearing No. GIPAMBE/ AADALITA/ GRANTALAYA/ VIVA 25/2023-24 dated 20.12.2023 declining to extend the benefit of compassionate appointment to the petitioner vide Annexure-K.

¶32

II. Issue a writ or a direction or an appropriate order in the nature of Mandamus directing the 2^nd Respondent authority to extend the benefit of appointment on

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18148 WP No. 100462 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

compassionate basis to the petitioner in the light of Rule 22 of Service Rules.

¶36

III. Issue such other orders and grant such other reliefs deemed fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶37

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶38

petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶39

The father of the petitioner is appointed as a Library Supervisor at Nandagav Grama Panchayath in Gokak District. The father of the petitioner after having served 28 years dies in harness. The petitioner submits a representation seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The representation is yet to meet its consideration. The claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds has been turned down by this Court that the Rules are changed after the death of the father of the petitioner.

¶40

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that identical issue comes up for consideration before this Court in Writ Petition No.106325/2024 disposed off on 15^th January 2025, wherein the this Court has held as follows:

¶41

4 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC-D:18148 WP No. 100462 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

“3. The mother of the petitioner joins the service as Library Supervisor under Mangsuli Gram Panchayat Library with effect from 06.11.2009. The mother of the petitioner dies in harness. On the death of his mother, the petitioner submits an application / representation seeking appointment on compassionate ground. That was not considered and the petitioner was at the doors of this Court in W.P. No.100711/2022, which comes to be dismissed. On dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner prefers appeal in W.A. No.100314/2023. The Division Bench allows the writ appeal by following the order:

¶45

“i) The appeal is hereby allowed.

¶46

ii) The impugned order dated 17.01.2023 passed in W.P. No.100711/2022 is hereby set aside.

¶47

iii) Respondents No.2, 5 and 6 are directed to reconsider the case of the appellant-writ petitioner for compassionate appointment in the light of Rule 22 of the Rules and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶48

iv) The appellant-writ petitioner shall submit a representation enclosing copy of this order along with necessary documents and marks cards to respondents Nos.2, 5 and 6 within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶49

The petitioner was directed to submit the marks card and necessary documents to the respondents within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The copy of the order is said to have been received on 29.09.2023. The petitioner then furnished the order of the Division Bench along with certain documents. Notwithstanding the said submission, the claim of the petitioner comes to be rejected on the score that the petitioner had not submitted his documents within ten days as was directed by the Division Bench (supra) . This is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in this subject petition, yet again.

¶50

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner taking this Court to the endorsement would submits that

¶51

5 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC-D:18148 WP No. 100462 of 2024

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

there are twin reasons on which the claim of the petitioner has come to be rejected; (i) that the documents were submitted after ten days as was directed by the Division Bench and (ii) that after the date of death of the mother of the petitioner, rules have been changed and therefore the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered for appointment on compassionate ground.

¶55

Learned counsel for the petitioner would seek to place reliance upon the order passed by the Coordinate Bench in W.P. 10874/2023 in support of his claim.

¶56

Per contra, learned counsel representing respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 would vehemently refute the submission contending that the petitioner was directed by the Division Bench to submit the documents within ten days. He has submitted after a month. Therefore, his candidature was not considered. Apart from the said fact, he contends that the Rules have undergone a change after the death of the mother of the petitioner. He would seek dismissal of the petition.

¶57

Learned HCGP would also toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for the other respondents.

¶58

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the material on record.

¶59

The afore narrated facts are not in dispute. The claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground as observed hereinabove is turned down on twin reasons; one being delay in furnishing the documents as directed by the Division Bench in the aforesaid writ appeal. The Division Bench had no doubt directed the documents to be to be submitted within ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The copy of the order is made available on 29.09.2023. The petitioner submits the documents on 04.10.2023 itself, along with the order in writ appeal. The dispute is with regard to the documents being submitted within the time frame of ten days or after ten days fixed by the Division Bench. The petitioner’s claim is for appointment on compassionate ground. Though the Division Bench had

¶60

6 -

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC-D:18148 WP No. 100462 of 2024

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

directed that the documents to be furnished within ten days and the petitioner submits that they were submitted, in time, technicalities or hyper technicalities should not be projected, by the respondents, to deny the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. If it has been submitted after ten days, but before a month. He said that the delay is not so huge to deny the appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, the first ground on which the endorsement is issued is rendered unsustainable, on the aforesaid grounds.

¶64

The other ground is that, there is a change in Rules after the death of the mother of the petitioner, this issue is considered by the Coordinate Bench in Writ Petition No.17804/2023. The Coordinate Bench on an identical circumstance has held as follows:

¶65

“5. When it is pointed out to this Court in the earlier writ proceedings in W.P. No.20489/2021 that the Government has notified the Rules providing for compassionate appointment with the Grama Panchayaths, this Court has opined that the respondents concerned are required to consider the petitioner's case for appointment on compassionate grounds under the Rules. This Court's conclusion in this regard reads as under:

¶66

"The above rule provides for consideration of dependants of the deceased employees working as Librarian and Library Supervisors for compassionate appointment. In view of the above rule, the respondents are required to reconsider the case of the petitioner. Therefore, without reference to Annexures A and B, respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in accordance with 2022 Rules."

¶67

6. This conclusion has not been called in question. This Court is of the view that, if the petitioner is appointed on compassionate grounds [though temporarily] without the rules helping her to tide over the immediate financial constraint, and she is accordingly continued even as of today over a period of twelve thirteen years, it would not be

¶68

7 -

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC-D:18148 WP No. 100462 of 2024

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

permissible [especially with this Court's observation as aforesaid to contend that she will not be entitled to appointment because the Rules have been framed later. The impugned Endorsement dated 26.07.2023 must yield, and the second to fourth respondents must be directed to consider the petitioner's case afresh without in any manner disturbing her continuance in work.

¶72

7. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not paid remuneration regularly. This Court must observe that the second to fourth respondents cannot insist upon the petitioner to continue the work without paying regularly and she must be paid for the services rendered thus far. Hence, the following:

¶73

ORDER

¶74

(a) The petition is allowed in part quashing the impugned Endorsement dated 26.07.2023 [Annexure A] directing the second to fourth respondents to consider the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment qua her qualifications and other parameters but independent of the fact that her husband has died just before the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayath Raj [Panchayat Library and Information Center Supervisors) Rules, 2022 are framed.

¶75

[b] The second to fourth respondents, upon receipt of a certified copy of this order, are directed to ensure that the petitioner is paid for her services so far in terms of the initial appointment subject to permissible revision.

¶76

[c] The petitioner will be at liberty to file a representation for appointment compassionate grounds and payment of remuneration for the services that

¶77

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18148 WP No. 100462 of 2024

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

were rendered so far along with a copy of this order within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of this order and if the petitioner files representation, as aforesaid, the second to fourth respondents shall consider both the aspects and communicate the decision to the petitioner within a period of three [3] months from the date of receipt of such representation. a on

¶80

Consequently, the application [IA.1/2023] stands disposed of.”

¶81

In the light of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench quoted supra, the second ground on which the endorsement is issued is also rendered unsustainable. Therefore, the case of the petitioner shall now merit consideration at the hands of respondents bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order without brooking any further delay. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶82

ORDER

¶83

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶84

(ii) The impugned communication of the third respondent dated 21.02.2024 vide Annexure-A and the impugned clarification issued by the second respondent dated 12.02.2024 vide Annexure-B stand quashed.

¶85

(iii) Mandamus issues to the respondent Nos.2 to 5 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order.

¶86

(iv) Consideration shall happen within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, if not earlier,

¶87

Ordered accordingly.”

¶88

9 -

¶89

NC: 2025:KHC-D:18148 WP No. 100462 of 2024

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

In the light of the issue standing answered and the endorsement projecting an identical circumstance, petition deserves to succeed with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order without brooking any further delay. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶92

ORDER

¶93

a. The petition is allowed.

¶94

b. The impugned endorsement dated 20.12.2023 vide Annexure-K issued by the 2^nd respondent dated stands quashed.

¶95

c. Mandamus issues to the respondent Nos.2 to 4

¶96

Authority to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order.

¶97