R. GURURAJAN, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONERS-YASHODAMMA and Raghunatha are before me seeking for a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure-B with a farther direction to the respondent to appoint the second petitioner on compassionate grounds in the given circumstances. ( 2 ) ONE Basavarajappa, an employee of the respondent Bank, died on 14-11-1998 while in service. The deceased Basavarajappa was working in Primary Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank at sira and he was under orders of transfer to Kolar at the time of his death. It is stated that the salary of Basavarajappa was the only source of livelihood to his family. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies has framed Regulations providing for appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of the Regulation 7 of the Regulations. According to the petitioners, an application was submitted for appointment on compassionate grounds. Even after 10 months, no action was taken. A writ petition in W. P. No. 27243 of 2000 was filed in this Court. This court directed the respondents to consider the application in terms of its order dated 12-6-2001. Respondents despite the orders of this Court did not consider the case of the petitioner. Contempt proceedings were initiated in C. C. C. No. 758 of 2002. At that stage, an endorsement was issued on 15-7-2002. The endorsement is produced at Annexure-B. Annexure-B is challenged by the petitioners in this Court. ( 3 ) RESPONDENTS have entered appearance. They have filed a detailed statement of objections. Respondents state that Basavarajappa was working as Supervisor in Primary Co-operative Agriculture and Rural development Bank at Sira. He was transferred to Kolar. He was relieved of his duties. He remained absent. During his tenure at Sira he has committed misappropriation of huge funds. Same was noticed by the departmental Audit Officials. Surcharge proceedings were initiated against Basavarajappa in Case No. 90 of 2000-01. In the said case, an application for attachment before judgment was filed under Section 103 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act against the assets held by the deceased Basavarajappa and his family members. A conditional order of attachment was passed in terms of Annexure-Rl. An application for appointment on compassionate grounds was made by the first petitioner. The said application was noticed. After noticing the same, respondents have rejected the same. According to them, misappropriation amount in terms of the audit report is Rs. 6. 46 lakhs. A conditional order of attachment was passed in terms of Annexure-Rl. An application for appointment on compassionate grounds was made by the first petitioner. The said application was noticed. After noticing the same, respondents have rejected the same. According to them, misappropriation amount in terms of the audit report is Rs. 6. 46 lakhs. The Bank was running under loss to the extent of Rs. 3. 25 crores. The subject of compassionate employment was deliberated, and taking into account that the said employee had misappropriated Rs. 5,62,923. 00 and also taking into consideration that the family was not under financial crises and not under distress, an endorsement has been issued by the respondents. According to them, the said action of the respondents is proper and legal and it does not call for my interference. ( 4 ) HEARD Sri Gangadharappa, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Learned Counsel invited my attention to the material facts to contend that the rejection in terms of Annexure-B is unsustainable in law. Reasons stated therein are extraneous and not in terms of the object of providing compassionate employment. He says that the assets, as stated by the respondents, cannot be taken note of by the respondents. Even otherwise, material facts would show that the petitioners are in distress and their case ought to have been considered. ( 5 ) PER contra, Sri Venugopala Gowda, learned Counsel for the first respondent would say that substantial property is owned by the petitioners. He says that the respondents have taken note of material facts and that therefore no case is made out by the petitioners. ( 6 ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsels on both sides, I have carefully perused the material on record. ( 7 ) THE only question that requires to be considered is as to whether the endorsement at Annexure-B would stand the test of law. Admitted facts would reveal of a request made in the light of the death of basavarajappa by the petitioners. Admitted facts would also reveal of the proceedings in the matter of misappropriation of substantial sum said to have been committed by the first petitioner's husband. Admitted facts would also reveal of surcharge proceedings initiated by the authorities. Admitted facts would further reveal that the properties are owned by Smt. Yashodamma in the matter. Admitted facts would also reveal of the proceedings in the matter of misappropriation of substantial sum said to have been committed by the first petitioner's husband. Admitted facts would also reveal of surcharge proceedings initiated by the authorities. Admitted facts would further reveal that the properties are owned by Smt. Yashodamma in the matter. ( 8 ) LET me see as to whether these facts would come to the aid of the petitioners in the light of Regulation 7 of the Regulations. Regulation 7 of the Regulations provides for compassionate employment being restricted to the dependent of the employee in the following order of preference: (a) Widow. (b) A son, if widow is not eligible or for any valid reasons is not willing to accept the appointment (c) An unmarried daughter if the widow and son are not eligible or for any valid reasons they are not willing to accept the appointment. Regulation 7 would say that the claim is to be by the dependent of a deceased employee. Material facts would reveal that in terms of surcharge proceedings certain orders have been passed ana in the said order it is stated that the petitioners are said to be owning the lands in various survey numbers. In fact, respondents have stated that they have taken note of financial position of the petitioners by way of their owning 5 acres and 1 guntas in the name of the deceased and 6. 17 acres in the name of the petitioner 1. Even the endorsement issued by them does not show that after taking note of surcharge proceedings they have chosen to reject the case on hand Issue of dependency would also depend upon various circumstances. The circumstances would include ownership, income derived from the property, quantum of property and the quantum of income and various other relevant considerations for the purpose of dependency. In the case on hand, respondents have only noticed that the first petitioner owns substantial properties and that therefore, it cannot be said that the family is wholly dependent upon the husband's salary. Courts can take judicial note of vagaries of nature resulting in deprivation of income in agricultural sector. Mere ownership of certain lands does not by itself would prove "no dependency" in such cases. Other factors such as net income or total income, etc. , would be relevant factors. Courts can take judicial note of vagaries of nature resulting in deprivation of income in agricultural sector. Mere ownership of certain lands does not by itself would prove "no dependency" in such cases. Other factors such as net income or total income, etc. , would be relevant factors. Mere ownership does not by itself would show that the deceased employee was not depending upon the salary of the deceased. Therefore, to give a factual finding with regard to compassionate appointment in terms of Regulation 7, some more facts/enquiry is necessary in the matter. Therefore, though some material is there on record that does not conclusively prove the factum of dependency in the matter. In the circumstances, I deem it proper to set aside Annexure-B. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to seek further information including financial status, income from the property and/or other relevant factors by way of appropriate letter within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order from the petitioner. On receipt of the same, petitioners are to provide factual particulars within four weeks thereafter. Respondents thereafter, in the light of the material to be produced and in the light of the material already available on record, are to give a factual finding with regard to dependency in terms of regulation 7 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within 8 weeks thereafter. ( 9 ) IN the result, Annexure-B is set aside. Matter is remitted for redecision in accordance with law. Authorities are at liberty to take note of any other subsequent development/s or any subsequent changed circumstances in the case on hand. Ordered accordingly. No costs. --- *** --- .