Smt. Eramma W/O. Late Ramu Vs the Registrar (Vigilance)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.09.2012 BEARING NO.LCA-II-158/2010 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F AND THE LETTER BEARING NO.DIS./PDJ/Bly/Admn/No.4813/2012 DATED 29.09.2012 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioners have challenged a communication dated 14.09.2012 addressed by the respondent No.1 to the respondent No.2 rejecting the request of the petitioner No.2 for appointment on compassionate grounds. They have also challenged the communication dated 29.09.2012 addressed by the Chief Administrative Officer of the office of the respondent No.2 to the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Hospet. They have also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to appoint the petitioner No.2 on compassionate basis.

¶25

The petitioners contend that the husband of the petitioner No.1 who was working as a bailiff in the Senior Civil

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4798 WP No. 77745 of 2013

¶27

Judge and JMFC Court, Hospet died on 01.06.2009 while in service. The petitioners submitted an application dated 19.04.2010 for appointment on compassionate grounds. They purportedly submitted all the required information as sought for by the respondent No.1. The petitioner No.1 also filed an affidavit dated 06.06.2012 that she had no objection for providing an appointment to the petitioner No.2 on compassionate basis. Similarly, the three sons of the deceased employee had also given their affidavits to the effect that they were residing separately and that they had no objection to provide an employment to the petitioner No.2 on compassionate grounds. They contend that though the petitioner No.2 was entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds, the respondents rejected the application on the ground that the family of the deceased was not facing financial crisis as stated under Rule 4(1) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996.

¶28

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶29

4 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4798 WP No. 77745 of 2013

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned order does not show the basis for the respondents to hold that the family of the deceased employee was not suffering from any financial crisis. He contends that in similar circumstances, this Court in W.P.No.22829/1999 had quashed the order and directed reconsideration of the case of the petitioners therein in the light of the judgment of a coordinate bench of this Court in Sevanthi Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, - ILR 1998 KAR 3082.

¶32

The petition is opposed by the respondents who has filed detailed statement of objections contending that the deceased employee had left behind him, the petitioner No.2 and his three other sons and a daughter. It is contended that the deceased employee had in the annual statement of assets and liabilities for the year ending 2009 had declared that all his children were residing with him. It was also stated therein that the eldest son of the deceased employee was working as a bailiff in the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hospet. The other son was working as a painter since 15 years and is residing separately, while the 3^rd son was an auto rickshaw driver and living separately. It is contended that under Rule

¶33

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4798 WP No. 77745 of 2013

¶34

4(1) of Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on compassionate Grounds) Rules 1996, the yardstick for considering whether the family is facing any financial crisis or whether the members of the family are destitute, is the recurring monthly income from all sources and only if it is less than total emoluments of a first division assistant, would a claim for appointment on compassionate grounds be considered.

¶35

It is also contended that as per the income certificate dated 21.05.2012 issued by the Tahsildar, Hospet Taluk, the annual income through family pension was Rs.1,13,472/- is drawn by the petitioner No.1. Besides this, it is contended that the annual income of the other family members is Rs.2,38,320/- and therefore, it is contended that the annual income of the family of the petitioners exceeds the scale of pay payable to a first division assistant which was Rs.2,05,416/-. Thus, it is contended that the petitioner No.2 is not entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds.

¶36

6 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4798 WP No. 77745 of 2013

¶38

The learned counsel for the respondents reiterated

¶39

the above contentions and submitted that the petitioner No.2 is not entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds.

¶40

I have considered the submissions of the learned

¶41

counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶42

The order impugned in this writ petition shows that the application of the petitioners was cursorily rejected on the ground that the family of the deceased employee was not facing any financial crisis or was not destitute as prescribed under Rule 3(1) of Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds), Rules 1996. The respondents did not disclose the reasons for arriving at such a conclusion. The respondents have tried to supplement reasons by stating in the statement of objections that the other family members of the petitioners were generating income. However, the same is not found from the impugned order. No opportunity was given to the petitioners to explain the circumstances, in which the family was placed and also whether other family members were taking care of the petitioners or not and whether other family

¶43

7 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4798 WP No. 77745 of 2013

¶45

members were seasonally or regularly employed. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned endorsement is as bald as it could be and therefore, deserves to the quashed.

¶46

In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed . The impugned order bearing No.LCA-II-158/2010 dated 14.09.2012 issued by the respondent No.1 is quashed. In the light of the above, the respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioners and decide the same in accordance with law, which shall at any rate be within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶47

Sd/(R.NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶48

sma - para No.1 HJ - para Nos.2 to 10 List No.: 19 Sl No.: 9

Smt. Eramma W/O. Late Ramu v. the Registrar (Vigilance)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Eramma W/O. Late Ramu v. the Registrar (Vigilance)

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.N.B.Marathe, Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Premkumar Vs the Principal District and Session and Anr.

Ramesh Rao Vs the Hon'Ble High Court of Karnataka

Subhas S/O. Gadigeppa Kerur Vs the Registrar General

Smt.Prema Murugesh Patil, Vs the Hon'Ble High Court of Karnataka

Smt.Renuka D/O Nagojirao Patil Vs the Registrar General