Maria Magadelin Das Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 05/02/2022 IN ANNEXURE-A BEARING NO: KAKOHAMA/ADMIN/36/2021-22/787 AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO RE CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER IN ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:37561 WP No. 6770 of 2022

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the endorsement dated 05.02.2022 vide Annexure-A, issued by the second respondent, rejecting the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.

¶25

The petitioner’s father was working as a Second Divisional Assistant in the Second Respondent - Board. While he was in service, he died on 28.05.2019. The petitioner filed an application on 19.01.2021 (Annexure-C) requesting to give appointment to her on compassionate grounds. The same came to be rejected by the second respondent vide Annexure-A dated 05.02.2022 on the ground that the application is filed after one year of the death of the employee, since in view of Rule 5 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 (for short, ‘1996 Rules’), the

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:37561 WP No. 6770 of 2022

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

application had to be filed within one year from the date of the death. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the following contentions:

¶30

(i) Firstly, the petitioner’s father died on 28.05.2019. As per Rule 5 of the 1996 Rules, the petitioner ought to have filed the application on or before 27.05.2020. But, in view of COVID pandemic, she was unable to file the application within that time.

¶31

(ii) Secondly, the Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3/2020 has held that, in computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded. Even the State Government, by order dated 10.09.2024, held that, in all recruitments the age limit has been relaxed for a period of 3 years. Without considering this aspect of the matter, the impugned

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:37561 WP No. 6770 of 2022

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

endorsement has been issued. Hence, he sought to allow the writ petition.

¶35

The learned AGA appearing for the respondent – State and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submit that, as per Rule 5 of the 1996 Rules, the dependents of the deceased employee has to file an application within one year from the date of death of the employee. The petitioner’s father died on 28.05.2019. The application was filed on 19.01.2021, after a lapse of one year seven months. The application is barred by limitation. Therefore, the application has been rightly rejected. Hence, sought to dismiss the writ petition.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers.

¶37

It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s father was working as a Second Division Assistant in the second respondent – Board. It is also not in dispute that he died on 28.05.2019 while in service. In view of COVID-19

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:37561 WP No. 6770 of 2022

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

pandemic, there was a lockdown in the nation from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021. As per the 1996 Rules, the applicant has to file an application within one year from the date of death of the employee. The petitioner is supposed to file an application on or before 27.05.2020. Since the country was already going through the COVID19 pandemic situation, the entire country was under lockdown. There was no way that the petitioner could have applied for the compassionate appointment within the stipulated time.

¶41

Even the Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3/2020 has excluded the period for limitation from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021. In this regard, the State Government has also issued a Government Order on 10.09.2024 in respect of recruitment to the posts of Group C and Group B in Civil Service is concerned, relaxing the age limit by three years. Therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for similar benefit of excluding the time for filing an application for compassionate appointment.

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:37561 WP No. 6770 of 2022

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Considering these aspects, the application filed by the petitioner has to be considered as filed within the time. Therefore, impugned endorsement is liable to be quashed.

¶45

Accordingly, the following order is passed:

¶46

(i) The impugned endorsement dated 05.02.2022 vide Annexure A issued by the second respondent is quashed.

¶47

(ii) The second respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner, in accordance with law, without dismissing the application on the ground of limitation, if the petitioner satisfies all other conditions, as expeditiously as possible, not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶48

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶49

CM

¶50

LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 42

Maria Magadelin Das v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maria Magadelin Das v. State of Karnataka

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

Sri Nandish Kumar S a Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

Mahadeva Vs State of Karnataka

Sri N Jagadesha Vs the Managing Director

Bhagirathi Vs State of Karnataka

Shri K Ramamurthy, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Vijaya Vs the Under Secretary