IN THE HIGH COURT or KAIRNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 3:-d DAY OF sEPTEMBER;'j:;>.0'A'
: PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUS'IiE(3mE.7§[.G§4§.VSH1'f§iI'5E§x4'$;I.li?i14T,
ANDZX A
THE HON'BLE MR.JUST1Q¢ * A T'
Writ Petition of..201b
Between: V. u V
1. The Government 0f'¥sIar:iatakaE.. . »
Department of' Animal H{1sband.i-jun _
And Fishiérieg . ' _ 1;. V
Represi:'ent,edVby'i.ts Sejere'ta1_'y,
M.S.BuVi1d'i-fig, V ~
Dr'."Anzbedkaff'Veedh;';-
B3c1ng_a.I0re--v;"'i¥?"--~O -- '
2. The 1D_irector'V. ,
Departmerit Vof._An~.iV1na1' Husbandry and
Fisheries,'-» AA '
j "Bainga 1_0re--5'6O
V' ...Petiti0ners
Krishnan, AGA)
A 1. Sn1t_.t'B. Lakshmi,
---Aged about 41 years,
n * W/0. Late Dyavegowda,
No.I41, 5"} Main Road,
Ganesha Block,
Nandini Layout,
Bangalore«~56O 096.
2. The Managing Director,
Karnataka Co--operative Fisheries
Federation Ltd.,
1 Floor,
Commercial Complex,
New Muslim Hostel Block.
Saraswathipurarn,
Mysore--9.
."Respjo.ndt--nts
This Writ Petition is filed unldierllfirticiels 1,-,2v:2._s and
of the Constitution of indiapraying to call _"for':theV records
from the Karnataka Adrninistrativep Tribunal in Application
l\Io.1839/2007' and .quashi""'th_e-- "order of» the Hon'ble
Karnataka Administrative TI'ib:u1Tl.&1,_'C1a.ljé3d 02.10.2009 made
in application No.183_9/2'0.037:»' which is produced at
Anriex:ure~A. ._ ' V. V ..
The Writ 'Petition icomingonl"for='Prelirninary Hearing,
this day, SAE4I_-1A.HIT"J..:,,rnade."tiie foiéowingz
QRDER
_ This..hWrit_'peti_tio~ii is flied being aggrieved by the
Q-kfififgpl--.,:dated'V..2b.x0.2O09 passed by the Karnataka
V Tribunal (hereinafter called as 'KAT? in
'App1icatic:>:nl::No.1839/2002, wherein, KAT has directed
the Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries to
'vc,oifi'sider the prayer of the applicant for appointment as
dated i4.2.2003 has intimated the applicant tha-t___it was
not permissible to give ernployment to a a
person, who was working in the
Fisheries Development Corpo:."atio'n; in t.heV:"meaIivvhile, 7.
the Karnataka Co--ope_rative'._
Limited in which the applieant's Wwlorkinlgl
as a Driver had bee'n~~..wo1_ind on the
further representation the Government
by order dat'e:rfl.s:2h7..Athel Kamataka Co»
operative. V provide employrnent
to _ compassionate ground. The
Federation the application concluded
that-the of the applicant was not its employee
.a:'idt therefore, appointment on compassionate ground
Being aggrieved by the said finding
that .._'§f1er "husband was not a Government servant,
A~ applicant had filed Writ Petition No.15062/2005 and it
disposed of on 16.10.2006 and the Karnataka Co-
"loperative Fisheries Federation Limited was directed to
consider the same and decide it in accordance with law.
The said Federation declined to appoint on
compassionate ground on the ground
was not its employee. Thereforeillan'applicationjxgasfiied it
for direction to the respondent~..Departrrirgnt' of op
Husbandry and Fisheries toiiconsidei’ for
compassionate application was
resisted by the Stateibiyt the husband of
the applicailtigzas Karnataka Co-
operative? and he died while
in g.ihévOV{‘Z’1″I11’l’1(3I’}.t employee and
thereiorxe,” a government servant, the
applicant a is “not” ‘entitled to appointment on
.coinpEa.ssion_ate ground. The Tribunal after considering
‘tits? of counsel appearing for the parties and
ori”«-Verification of the records found that, Dyavegowda,
ehuusband of the applicant was appointed by the
“I(l}oVernment as driver in the Fisheries Development
‘ ‘ ”'”Corporation. It is clearly stated in the said order that,
we
the appointment is by the Government and appointee
will be on deputation to the Karnataka Co–operative
Inland Fisheries Federation and therefore’;”«the_: S_tat.e
cannot now contend that Dyavegovvda_:’fvvas: not”
Government servant and in lvievvrcoff the .,fact”Vth_atw:.;t1ie ‘
application was pending -for _:\§yevarsi,t»
directed the Director 0fl4h”‘;AIij.1jI1al Hnsbaiadry and
Fisheries to consideethe accordance with
law within three mo1’it1*1sfpositivelj,T the date of the
order. Being t.l*1ef saidlmolrder of the Tribunal
dated ‘Statehas preferred this appeal.
“We the learned Government
Advocate ‘appearing’ for petitioners.
Tilgearned Government Advocate submitted that
._i’l’7._e.1 the applicant Dyavegowda was not a
Govettnrnent Servant and he was on deputation to
“V * E{a_rna’taka Co–operative Inland Fisheries Federation
‘rid the said Federation is now closed and Dyavegowda
was not a Government servant and therefore, the
question of appointment of the applicant on the
compassionate ground would not arise.
5. We have given careful consideration
contentions of the learned Government
scrutinized the material on recordf’
6. T he material on Vrecord lvvozuld clearly
that, the Tribunal on verificatioia of theporiginal’ records
has held that, a temp’or_ary driver created in
Fisheries Development Government
retrospectivelg/’lfrxoin and…..vwl3yavegowda was
appoirgtedly as driver to that post
retrospectively It is clearly stated in
the ,S8Jd o’rder~.*that ‘lithe appointment is by the
d V. “”Governin*entA..and appointee will be on deputation to
i’the.i-_Karnatva}rVa-Cooperative Inland Fisheries Federation
and”««there’fonr§’e; now it is not open to the State to contend
Jthat_ Dvavegowda who died while in service was not a
e._’G.ov’e’1’nment Servant, as his order of appointment itself
would clearly show that he was treated as government
x53;
shall be disposed off within three months from today.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disrnissed.
tsI1*