Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 20 (KAR)

Lakshmidevi v. State Of Karnataka

2019-01-02

R.DEVDAS

body2019
JUDGMENT : R.Devdas J. (Oral) - Though the matter is listed for "Hearing-Interlocutory Application", with the consent of the learned counsel on both sides, the mater is heard and disposed of finally. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition being aggrieved by the endorsement dated 25.11.2013 issued by respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District rejecting the application made by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. 3. It is contended by the petitioner that her husband Sri S.Muniraju, entered the services of the Town Municipal council, Hosakote as Tractor Loader w.e.f. 20.03.1987. Subsequently, by order dated 01.03.1995, the petitioner's husband was appointed under the relevant rules as Tractor Loader (Group-D), with pay scale attached to the said post. The petitioner's husband passed away on 11.08.2009 before his services were regularized. After the death of the petitioner's husband, the petitioner herein made an application to the respondent No.3 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The respondent No.3- Deputy Commissioner issued the impugned endorsement rejecting the application made by the petitioner on the ground that there is no provision for appointment on compassionate grounds, since the petitioner's husband died even before his services were regularised. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to a circular dated 02.01.1997 issued by the respondent-State Government and further submits that as per the said circular, if a employee dies even before the services are regularised but has completed services of more than 10 years, the legal representative of the said employee shall be eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. 5. Learned counsel relies upon a judgment of this Court in the case of R.Shivakumar v. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.57932/2017, which was disposed of on 20.06.2018. In that case, under similar circumstances, this Court while taking into consideration the circular dated 02.01.1997 quashed the endorsement issued and directed the respondents to consider the application made by the petitioner therein in the light of the circular dated 02.01.1997. 6. On the other hand, learned AGA submits that the case of the petitioner is different from the one in W.P.No.57932/2017 (supra). 6. On the other hand, learned AGA submits that the case of the petitioner is different from the one in W.P.No.57932/2017 (supra). Learned AGA further submits that the appointment of the petitioner's husband was not in accordance with law since the appointing authority as per the circular dated 10.02.1995 issued by the State Government, was the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District, while the appointment of the petitioner's husband was made by the President of the Town Municipal Council. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out to the relevant provisions i.e., Rule 2(b) of the Karnataka Municipalities (Recruitment of Officers and Servants) Rules 1971, which provides that in the case of posts the pay or the maximum of the scale of pay which does not exceed Rs. 1310/- per month, the Municipal Council is the appointing authority. Moreover, it is contended that under similar circumstances, in another case pertaining to one Sri Nagaraju, who was also a daily wage employee at Doddaballapur City Municipal Council, the services of the deceased employee was notionally regularised and his wife Smt.V.Lakshmamma was appointed on compassionate grounds, by order dated 07.11.2012. In the light of the above, though the learned AGA seeks to sustain the endorsement issued by the respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner, in order to enable the respondents to take decision in view of the discussions made above, the endorsement dated 25.11.2013 at Annexure-K is quashed and direction is issued to the respondents to reconsider the application dated 26.10.2009 filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law. To enable the same, the petitioner is granted liberty to file representation enclosing a copy of the application and all supporting documents with respondent No.3, who shall taken note of the same, keeping in view the observations contained in this order and thereafter take a fresh decision in accordance with law 8. The decision in any event shall be taken by the respondent No.3 as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three months from the date of which the representation is submitted by the petitioner. 9. The petition is accordingly disposed of.