The Commissioner Vs Sri. Toufeeq Ahmed S/O Late M.K. Jagirdhar

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THEREBY QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.05.2017 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, AT BENGALURU, IN APPLICATION NO.2186/2007 AT ANNEXURE-C IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶23

2 -

¶24

WP No.103533 of 2018

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 12.03.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, S.G. PANDIT, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND

¶27

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶28

CAV ORDER

¶29

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT)

¶30

The State Authorities in Labour Department, are before

¶31

this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the order dated 30.05.2017 passed in Application No.2186/2007 by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru¹ , by which, respondent’s/applicant’s application questioning the withdrawal of his appointment on compassionate ground, is quashed.

¶32

Brief facts of the case are that, the respondent’s father was working as a Literate Assistant in the office of Labour Inspector, Bijapur and he died while in service on 19.7.1993. Immediately thereafter on 17.2.1994, mother of the respondent filed an application for compassionate appointment. The petitioners/authorities issued an endorsement informing that the respondent shall make an application after attaining the age of majority. The respondent

¶33

1 ‘Tribunal’ for short

¶34

3 -

¶35

WP No.103533 of 2018

¶36

attained the age of majority on 25.1.2004 and thereafter on 20.02.2004, the respondent filed an application for compassionate appointment. By order dated 16.2.2005, the respondent was provided compassionate appointment, in pursuance to which, he was given posting as Group-D employee on 3.1.2007. Immediately thereafter, by impugned memo dated 27.2.2007, order appointing the respondent on compassionate ground was withdrawn on the ground that it is in violation of Rule 5 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules 1996² . The said order withdrawing the compassionate appointment was the subject matter of Application No.2186/2007 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal under impugned order dated 30.5.2017 quashed the said order with a direction to reinstate the respondent into service with all consequential benefits.

¶37

The order sheet dated 1.10.2018 in the above writ petition would indicate that the respondent has been reinstated into service and insofar as payment of consequential benefits, stay is granted subject to payment of salary to the respondent every month.

¶38

2 ‘Rules 1996’, for short

¶39

4 -

¶40

WP No.103533 of 2018

¶41

Heard the learned Government Advocate Sri. G.K. Hiregoudar for the petitioners/State and learned counsel Sri.B.A. Turki for the respondent/applicant. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

¶42

Learned Government Advocate would contend that the father of the respondent died in the year 1993 and respondent made an application for compassionate appointment only in the year 2004 and by the time when the petitioners considered the case of the respondent for compassionate appointment, respondent’s financial distress was not in existence. Therefore, learned Government Advocate would submit that on the question of delay in requesting compassionate appointment, the application filed before the Tribunal is liable to be rejected. Further, learned Government Advocate would submit that as on the date of death of respondent’s father, there was no Rule, and Rules 1996 came into force subsequently. He submits that the respondent attained the age of majority in the year 2004, whereas, respondent’s father died in the year 1993. He submits that in terms of Rules 1996, respondent would not be entitled/eligible for compassionate appointment. In that regard, learned Government Advocate places reliance on a decision of the Apex

¶43

5 -

¶44

WP No.103533 of 2018

¶45

Court in the case of N.C. Santhosh Vs. State of Karnataka & Others³ .

¶46

Per contra, learned counsel for the

¶47

respondent/applicant would submit that the respondent is working as Group-D employee in pursuance of order of appointment on compassionate ground. It is submitted that on providing compassionate appointment, respondent joined the duty and thereafter, without even issuing notice, impugned memo dated 27.02.2007 (Annexure-A8) is issued withdrawing the order of appointment on compassionate ground. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶48

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are the considered view that the petitioners/State has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.

¶49

There is no dispute with regard to respondent’s father working as a Literate Assistant in the office of Labour Inspector, Bijapur and his death in harness on 19.7.1993. It is also not in dispute that in pursuance of respondent’s application

¶50

3 (2020) 7 SCC 617

¶51

6 -

¶52

WP No.103533 of 2018

¶53

filed in the year 2004, the respondent was provided an order of appointment on compassionate ground on 16.2.2005 and he reported to duty on 3.1.2007. While he was working as GroupD employee, the impugned memo dated 27.02.2007 (Annexure-A8) is issued withdrawing the order of appointment on compassionate ground. Once having appointed and permitted the respondent to work as Group-D employee, the petitioners/authorities could not have relieved or withdrawn the order appointing the respondent on compassionate ground without providing any opportunity to the respondent. The action of the petitioners in issuing the impugned memo dated 27.2.2007 is in total violation of principles of natural justice. When a person is provided with employment, he/she shall be relieved or terminated only by following the procedure prescribed under law.

¶54

The contention of the learned Government Advocate that the respondent was not eligible for compassionate appointment under Rule 5 of Rules 1996, ought to have been put to the respondent by way of show-cause notice and on obtaining the reply, the authorities ought to have taken further action. In the instant case, no show-cause notice is issued to the respondent before relieving him by calling upon him as to

¶55

7 -

¶56

WP No.103533 of 2018

¶57

why the order of appointment on compassionate ground shall not be withdrawn. As the impugned memo is in violation of principles of natural justice, the contention raised by the learned Government Advocate with regard to applicability of Rule and other contentions pale into insignificance. Moreover, the respondent is working since 2018 for last more than 7 years. At this length of time, he has already reached 40 years of age and he would not be in a position to get any other alternate employment.

¶58

In the peculiar facts of the present case and as the impugned memo dated 27.02.2007 (Annexure-A8) is in violation of principles of natural justice, we decline to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Thus, we find no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition stands

¶59

rejected .

¶60

Sd/(S G PANDIT) JUDGE

¶61

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶62

JTR CT:VP

The Commissioner v. Sri. Toufeeq Ahmed S/O Late M.K. Jagirdhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner v. Sri. Toufeeq Ahmed S/O Late M.K. Jagirdhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Laxmi W/O Peenak Kosandal Vs Sri Peenak S/O Geerdhar Kosandal

Shri. Akbar S/O Murtuja Jamadar Vs Miss v Tara

Sri Vinodkumar S/O. Ningappa Gunjal Vs Smt. Meenakshi (Jyothi) W/O. Vinodkumar Gunjal

Karanataka Industrial Area Development Vs M/S Sangamesh Sugars Limited

The Secretary Vs Shri. Vinayak Yallappa Hongekar

Sri Dilnawaz D Badami S/O D.a.Badami Vs the State of Karnataka