Smt. Rathnamma Vs the State of Karnataka

(BY SRI. JAYALINGAYYA MUDDENOORMATH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 3; SRI. B.J.SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2, 4 AND 5)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.3, SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, TO CONSIDER PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DATED 17.04.2017, COPY SUBMITTED AT ANNEXURE-B, AND ALONG WITH THE PROPOSAL RESPONDENT NO.5, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DATED 08.02.2017, COPY SUBMITTED AT ANNEXURE-A, FOR APPOINTMENT OF 2^ND PETITIONER ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10223 WP No. 7723 of 2019

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.3 to consider the proposal submitted by the respondent No.4 dated 17.04.2017 to the respondent No.3 as well as the proposal sent by the respondent No.5 to the respondent No.4 dated 08.02.2017 for appointment of petitioner No.2 on compassionate grounds.

¶28

The petitioners contend that the husband of the petitioner No.1 who was employed as a driver in the office of respondent No.5, died while in service on 13.03.2016 leaving the petitioners distraught. The petitioner No.1 submitted an application dated 24.01.2017 to the respondent No.5 for appointment on compassionate grounds. The respondent No.5 forwarded the application of the petitioner No.1 to the respondent No.4 along with his observations. The respondent No.4 in turn forwarded the proposal to the respondent No.3, but the respondent No.3 has not considered the said representation and therefore the petitioners are before this Court for suitable directions.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioner No.2 is entitled for appointment on

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:10223 WP No. 7723 of 2019

¶32

compassionate grounds and that the respondent No.3 is bound to consider the representation of the petitioner No.1. He submits that since the respondent No.3 has not considered the representation, suitable directions be issued to the respondent No.3.

¶33

The petition is opposed by the respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 who contended that after receipt of the representation of the petitioner No.1, the State Government had passed an order dated 19.09.2014 by considering the financial benefit the husband of the petitioner No.1 was entitled to, pursuant to the Karnataka Daily Wages Welfare Act, 2012. It was contended that as per the Karnataka Daily Wages Employees Welfare Rules, 2013, there is no provision for appointment on compassionate grounds. Therefore, the respondent No.2 issued an endorsement dated 15.06.2019 informing the respondent No.5 to communicate the rejection of the claim of the petitioners for appointment on compassionate grounds. The respondent No.4 in turn served a copy of the endorsement upon the petitioner No.1 on 18.06.2019. The respondent No.5 also communicated the decision of the respondents vide letter dated 25.06.2019 to the petitioner No.1. Therefore it is

¶34

5 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:10223 WP No. 7723 of 2019

¶36

contended that the claim of the petitioner No.1 that her representation is not considered is incorrect.

¶37

The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5 submitted that the respondent No.3 has communicated the decision on the application of the petitioner No.1 on 15.06.2019.

¶38

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶39

It is evident from the orders that are enclosed along with the statement of objections of the respondents that the case of the petitioners was considered and rejected on the ground that the husband of the petitioner No.1 was a daily wage employee and that he was entitled to certain benefits under the Karnataka Daily Wages Employees Welfare Act, 2012 and Karnataka Daily Wages Employees Welfare Rules, 2013. Therefore, no direction can be issued to the respondents to again reconsider the application filed by the petitioners.

¶40