-----.--.... ------.-. 1... ---u -n-new - man ur IVMKNI-\iAl§A HIGH COURT OF KARNAITAKA H365?-I COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA I-HGH C lineman in the office of Assistant Executive 8; M Sub--DivisioI1, Balki, Bijapur District. He is se:¢i"'te'i in harness on 6.5.1992. The petitioners '}»Q\.,,, petitioner did not bear any it Shankar is said to have Sifit. the 2nd petitioner is 'V " Smt Gowramma also expirecition as such the 2114 petitioner was ut3rought::'ii1'3:' and for all practical iliei mother of the Que petitioner; ., N M 3. In the respondents have a scheme
V ‘~t’or of’ adependant on compassionate grounds,
t!1o’L1;g:h:,”tt:ie–.¢1st petitioner, at the first iastanee, would
to seek for empioymeilt on compassionate
the 23d petitioner was a minor at the time of
gem; of Shankar, she had refrained from seeking for
appointment immediately but waited so that her son
Leould seek appointrnent. Subsequently, the application made
seeking appointment en compassionate gounds has been
i
.r1.n.u— nuns uu-un: vs l\r’|l\l1.F|I!”|l\!’| rnun Li
rejected by the respondents by issue of the
endorsement dated 5.1.2005. A
3. On behalf of the :espQnde1its,:’it centended as
per the Karnataka Electricity’
(Appointment on eompassi_onate”‘§;§:);1nd.s) Reguiations, 1997 ,
the definition of family i11<'1'iVca:tes'that,_..:.:' –
1:p '.;.i fdéocased Board
3: his or her legally
""" = spouse their sons Whether
._ and unmarried
– ‘daughtefi-n§hQ’.We”1:e jointly living with
‘ _ wlitended that since admittedly the 2″”
born to the 2*” wife and since the 2nd wife
as the legally wedded spouse, the 2nd
jv”v”I:)’VC1ZitZi0IlCi’ not be entitied to seek for appointment on
ground and therefore the request made by the
?’ has been rightly rejected by the respondents. In
-..t?1at View it is contended that the petitioners are not entitied
to relief.
}z
1-
0 -now-as 1-rs u\ru\uvr|iru\.l-1 ;’u\JI’l \.:’|-JIJISI \JI’ I’\I’\Kl’II’\II-\I\.F\ (‘Hag-I
4. Having heard the respective learned counsei.:hfi.Vhave
perused the writ papers.
5. Insofar as the contention that 254. ‘
considered as the legally spouse”
subsistence of the let i_ quarrel
whatsoever. However, of the case, there
exists a peculiar ‘ aspect of the
matter to find out as to
whether the” petitioner could be
granted ernot.
A :’1__’i}eV fact’~-vtnateiflie deceased Shankar had initially
and theneafier had married “L Smt.
dispute. The 234 petitioner is born to
em. through late Shankar is also admitted by
. I Though as per the definition of family as
in the Regulations, the said Smt. Gowranama
eanaot be considered as the legally wedded Wife, what is to
be noticed in the present case is that the 23¢ petitioner was
born on 5.6.1985, sometime thexeafter his father Shankar
35
1|
£1
.0 30.2 $§<z..$. ".0 5.900 20.2. .<¥<._.<Zu¢3 ".0 PKDOU 20:.' <x<…<Z¢<¥ $0 #2300 103.. <¥¢h<Zx<¥ mo 3.03.. iaaailntt .:J 353… ED: