. «Q Am
~ 2 ' Jrné MANAGER
:24 THE HIGH counr or KARNATAKA AT _
DATED THIS THE 1" DAY or pgcsmss.-'.a, .%'2acé.ij[ T _%
THE HOWBLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.-.yEN'Li{SJGPALAr. kt
WRIT PETITION No.9§:fi2/zoos (3.355) A,
BETWEEN: % _
SR1 MAHADEVASWAMY V j V
s/0 LATE SR1 MAP,'£'@ MARIAPPA
AGEDABO{}T2?"YEA1?.S "
RESID1NGAT!'30422;3V__--./. ~ « %
KESAREIGPLADE-"'~,'
RAJENDRA NAGAR
MYSORE.' %%%% %:% A
PETITIONER
(av SRI. ?4._ SLlBRfisfik§N?A"E§i'AT, ADV. FOR
HIS. susm mo RSSQCIATES)
A 1; $ k "r.+3eKARr¢ATAxA POWER
" A _ 'TR'M§SM'ISSION CORPORATION LIM1Ti':}.)
'- %REm_asEk:q'rEo BY THE cmmm AND
% A 'nameim DIRECTOR
CAUVERY BHAVAN
BANGALORE.
' -- _ ALIHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LIMITED
MYSORE.
3 THE SU?ER'INTENDING ERGXNEER (ELCL)
THE KARNT AKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED NOW UNDER
THE CHAMUNDESHWARI Ei.ECTRiCITY
illegal. He contended that, providing an appointmenton
compassionate grounds to a dependent of
employee, is to give some sort of security to K
the deceased, to overcome the herd'si'i:p
family and the respondents by the
defeated the very purpose and”‘tih:e’scheme_V_oféppc-lnfient
on compassionate grciintls. contended”” that, the
petitioner and his mother are resiid’ing.,.:sesI;Va’reetey, they are
not getting any iisna’_ncia§!A_A from the elder
brother;-V of their separate residence can
also be seen”fromi._ti1ej«ration’card produced at Annexure-H
and hence there,_f/vats par for the respondents to have
I-‘f’,_v.”considered t”ne_ casewof the petitioner. Learned counsel
impugned action of the respondents is
_ violAa’tive,__of Artlicies 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of
.’°”‘–..VV’,I’n,clia andlalso the Regulations. Relying on a decision of
i ,’thVl’s*»Court in case of K. RAJA vs. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY
f eokao, reported in ILR 1990 KAR 1368 it was vehemently
‘ “contended that, the impugned endorsement is liable to be
\
t//’ .
19
claimed nor offered as a matter of right
whatever be the circumstances in _tJh.e»_fami_i’y;” “€e_gti’iatioVnev’: “‘
clearly state that, appointment onv’*conr’_i_pejesl’onete’ g:rou–nti£+.j
shall not be claimed as a malftVe–r..of anci’.:vei9s.i;_;jll«….not9 be
given as a matte of course and..the._a’p»pointrne:nt tinder the
Regulations is restricted*.tho_ ci.epe’nTdent of the deceased
in the order of preferencel»lndicetedlihn ifegfilatlon 3(2)(a)
to (c). 4’j_4_:7-etip__filatesu:”the conditions of
appointrnentg.fwhlichl appointment on
compaeeionatev”i;ro;irid$~chva_ii* be subject to the following
conditlone’; lnalrnew; »– J
_{(1;» The flfemlifir of the deceased Board
Verraployee’ should be in an immediate
_ .financial crisis, destitution on account of
tloetleath of the employee.
it ‘ Expl.a’n’ation :-
” (a) Family of a deceased board employee
shall be considered to be in financial crisis
destltution if the recurring monthly income
of the family from all sources of all
persons whether Ilvlng separately or
jointly including earnings of other family
members shall be less than the income
prescribed by the board from time to time
for calculating such monthly income the
income from family penslon, interest
12
stipulated that, the family of the deceased
should be in immediate financial crisis or it
account of the death of the einple’yee_ye’nid”*«.iyn-:
whether the family of the destceaseci-. flnemlfal
income from alt sources of eit if-living
separately or jointly, of family
members, shall he less :then by the
mare and in famliy of the
deceased in a State or
Centrai:’1Govethttieht:y: of a public or private sector
undertakineorVVa”prlxtetel’establishment, on the basis of
certifi:icete~ lssued.V..V:hy the employer and in case such
self-empioyed on the basis of the certificate
iseijedeby:’AVthe’V~.reyenue officer not below the rank of the
V «VTehs’iider;Jsi’i’euld be taken into consideration. Thus the
“V.”iflen:psh’es.iVs”of the Regulations is the immediate financial
c’§vis!’s”faced by the family of the deceased empieyee and
T whether the family has the prescribw min-iqum income.
/
Ki
15
mother was amployed and was getting salary of Rs.§;Cl§Q{-
p.m., lt was held that, appetiant wm not _
appointment: on compassionate grounds,
passtpg the procedure for
commtitlon. Thus, It Is c%aar_that,._ti1e lncottts4_vof”j’;ttio
family as stipulated In Regu-latlou “mam
criteria, should be lsltoilsldeflna
the claim for appolnmjopt grounds.
Said course {of pltass by the
respondents’-1tit1l_la«V’: tlalm of the mlfloner
and In lssuihp
._’jfi2e:,pl_lA.:In.._ metllcasasor STATE BANK or INDIA AND
V.”-V.1_\’l’tl’_V)’.l’l’~£AE’a’r’-‘L.:_:\’I’S..”.’lV sonvm smou, reported In (2907) 4 scc
773,.’_lt theta as follows:
up It is well settled that the namanip of the
. – dependantdoes not entifle one to compassionate
_ appointment dehots the scheme or the statutory
fimvisbns as the case may be. The income of
the family from all swarm is requinsd m be
taken into oonséderation aoconding to are schetm
which the High Court altogether ignored while
remitting the matter for flesh comideratlm by
the appellant Bank. It is not a case wtme the
X,
ihefieceased person Ieft behind. Unless the
% & ‘ ;k:%3m_1%%pEvi (sum, reported in (1997) s scc 301, the ram
_ ‘fhat, a writ petition had been mass by the widew
cdhtending that, her husband had died in hamm and that
n : she had applied for appointment to her son on
16
dependents of the deceased empioyee are , ”
“without any means of livelihood’ and msablq ~
make both ends meet. The High Court qagiltnot K
to have disturbed the findinggandé the ‘
arrived at by the appellant _B6:–‘,Ik’«_ that «
respondent was not living ‘
observed by this Court, in G.M,(B&PB) ”
Tiwary ((2004) 7 sec 27; .– 2304 scc
943) the High Court canncitwlutre the of
penury to one of ‘fact very. Iyirati’-£9-do’?
taken by the Divikfgn High Court
may amount be “varying scheme
framed by the amellant Bank. course is
13. Ir3″i’i;g :9f:_;’5TATE:«’,_’8;§!§l;( or man mo
oTHERsifs’;T% in (2007) 2 sec
(L815) 5?8, ‘|t has foflows:
V. _ major criasrion while
,,4_%appointingA-aperson on compassionate grounds
– shewld. be théfinancial aanditim of the famfly
‘ V _ “;’ir§*2::ci.§i».._ct’Qnd:?l*ion is entirely penurious, such
” armot be made.
1%4%.j;%nthe case of STATE or H.P. AND ANOTHER vs.
\
./2
of the Government, the applimtion for appo_I;ffia1$fe;.ffitj: _
comoassionate grounds was rightly l._the!”
employer and that the High Could:
aside the order passed bytho etfiptoyer asidu’:
consideration of the on
compassionate _
15. In the caso… A§:;otcodo £§Nomsa vs.
AwAoHesH t$1%r~;oHdtAu%of:Aajo?8sR,, repoma in (2001) 10
SCC 6211;’ tho was that, circular
providirfifost ,étpoointrnent acpslctfly ma-kw
It dearj that,’ ~Vtt_1e.q’ueAs£*,i’oi*;»tVof compamlonate appoinmmwt
V, M arise Ittono—of the dwandents of the deceased is
.V’*’.§iroody It was contended to the contrary by
the of the deceased mnpioyee. Constdefine
ou£1;Fh§s$ions of both was and the (women which
A ‘~1t.}a’t_:’AAo§te”~«_for consideraflon v!z., whaher the memorandum of
A”4’V””.__”V”.”ad«reanent, is It pannlssmie for the dwendant of me
yydgdeceased to claim an appointment on composflonate
/W’,
:.’§£’aVs’..d:.”.’;e¢ on 19.11.1999; that his 3 elder brathers are in
.A:.’,en~éployment; his mother has recelvw service benefits and
‘ this In receipt of the famlly pension. More than 9 years has
19
grounds, even when some other _
deceased is already In service, it has been ” w.
The memorandum or agreement”— 1-,.
appointment on oampassiotiabe’-_ gmufid ”
been evolved by the employertsa tha!’;”(3:?A the
sudden death of an hie
woum not be on the road as and can
maintain themse!§e=s_ if Ehgiyen
to any one of ‘dfjshe., deceased.
mnmwfiygitd n I3 View of
the. matter M_re_ ere».,unab£e to swmin the
of” the »– Patna High Court In the
impugtled’ju@ment3. It may m stated that a
V? ._;.Bem:l1 of this Court has already taken a similar
iview in me of $.Mohan v. Govt. of T.N.
. ¢’1_99_8,l 9.566 485 : 1998 SCC (Les) 1231) with
V _ ” have our rIe$ectful aonamence.
( Emphasis supplied by m)
T 1″6.._.A’:’As already noticed, the father of the paltlener
elapsed from the date of death and the family has over
let
24
place not withstanding the former employment_.§f’Eng-lgoflijl
of the deceased employee of the” v
similarity between cm. dated 1e.4n¢19nsAp¢ohsIoeredox;ht,thhT
case of l<.Raja (supra) and the-gegulatlilons atv"lé;pngo.):uf;e;F
herein. In the Regulations it dcfar that,
the income of the famihfifrorn of on persons,
whether llvlna se9aral:ely..or:vJotntl:y,thiocntena, which
was not the ccgltehtnlnh,hlpahch13.44935, which was
the prayer In the case
K.Raja.:*__ not in force on the date the
petitlonet's– of the fact that, the dalm
madghereln ié' bat.-sad on the OM. dated 16.4.1986,
laasls of the Regulations (Annexure–F), the
no appllcatlon, for considaatlon of claim
V «V of tho "«–pei;l'tloner for appointment on compasslonate
Hence, based on the decision In the case of
–‘ Kfiajé the clalm of the petitioner was not required to be
T consldered by the respondents and hence cannot aiso be
V U considered by me.
“irnpu;}n:eci–.”endorsemént is flawless.
V -petition .is’*V:ds”Void of merit and is dismissed accordingly.
. * its costs.
21. Since the application for
compassionate grounds was required to “iv
the respondents in terms of Rsguiinitirans,.”:notifiq;§..s:\_on:vE
17.4.1997 and the case of -the .
considered accordingly and found
that, 2 of the petitioners:aéidor-‘_V:iir§;tiiésrs».V.s’rain Govsmment
empioyment andthe total:’_incoVrr.i::e “ofv,.”ifiiis’*V”family being
above the tiioflcvijétitioner has been
informed for appointment on
compassionsté * if This V consideration by the
respondsnts: bein;;.VVinA with the Regulations and
the iawv Aths”‘..Hon’bIe Supreme Court, the
r AV”.ForVV’ti§s§fo’néooing discussions and reasons, the writ
361/’
Iudge
K51/-i