Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1637 (KAR)

Divisional Controller NWKRTC Uttara Kannada Division v. Ganesh S/O Suresh Goankar

2020-09-01

P.S.DINESH KUMAR, S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

body2020
JUDGMENT : State Road Transport Corporation (‘Corporation’ for short) has presented this appeal challenging the order dated 15.2.2019, in W.P.No.101129/2017, whereby the Hon’ble Single Judge has directed the Corporation to consider writ petitioner’s representation (Annexure-B) for appointment on compassionate grounds, within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 2. Heard Shri Prashant Hosmani, learned advocate for appellant/Corporation and Shri Mrutyunjay Hallikeri, learned advocate for Respondent/writ petitioner. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, one Suresh Goankar was working as driver with the Corporation. He was dismissed from service. The said order was challenged by the workman before the Labour Court. Labour Court directed reinstatement with back wages. The said order was challenged by the Corporation before this Court in W.P.No.21882/2004 (LK). Whilst the writ petition was pending, workman passed away. This Court, by order dated 27.5.2013, has directed payment of terminal benefits to the legal representatives of deceased workman. 4. Petitioner in this writ petition is son of deceased workman. He presented an application dated 16.1.2016 (Annexure-B) seeking appointment on compassionate ground. Corporation, by endorsement dated 5.10.2016, has rejected petitioner’s request. Accordingly he filed the instant writ petition. The Hon’ble Single Judge has directed consideration of petitioner’s request for appointment on compassionate ground within two months. Hence, this appeal. 5. Shri Hosmani, supporting the endorsement rejecting writ petitioner’s request for appointment on compassionate ground submitted that this Court in W.P.No.21882/2004 (LK) has directed only payment of terminal benefits. Therefore petitioner would not be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. 6. Shri Hallikeri, placing reliance on a decision of this Court in The Divisional Controller, NEKRTC vs. P.S.Farid a Begum (Writ Appeal No.100781/2014 (S-RES), decided on 13.10.2014), submitted that in identical circumstances this Court has held that, an application similar to one submitted by the writ petitioner merits consideration in the hands of Corporation. 7. We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records. 8. Firstly, this Court by order dated 27.5.2013 has directed payment of terminal benefits. Terminal benefits can be ordered only when the order of dismissal is set aside. Therefore, contention on behalf of Corporation that the order does not inure to petitioner’s benefit to seek appointment on compassionate ground is not tenable. 9. Secondly, writ petitioner has submitted his application on 16.1.2016. Terminal benefits can be ordered only when the order of dismissal is set aside. Therefore, contention on behalf of Corporation that the order does not inure to petitioner’s benefit to seek appointment on compassionate ground is not tenable. 9. Secondly, writ petitioner has submitted his application on 16.1.2016. To a query made by us, learned advocate for Corporation submitted that, as per circular dated 4.12.2018, application for compassionate appointment has to be filed within one year from the date of death of the employee. Therefore it is clear that prior to date of said circular, there was no time limit to submit application. However it is settled that an application will have to be filed within a reasonable time. In identical circumstances, this Court in the case of Farida Begum, has held as follows: “We do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge inasmuch as the same is just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. Since the order of dismissal is set aside in its entirety, as a natural consequence, the application filed by the widow/respondent also needs to be considered f or appointment on compassionate ground. Since the employee had died at the time of proceedings before the Labour Court, it has after setting aside the order of dismissal, directed that the terminal benefits be paid to the claimant. It could not have ordered for reinstatement because of the death of the workman. Hence, learned Single Judge is justified in directing the Corporation to consider the application of the widow for appointment on compassionate grounds. In view of the same, no interference is called for. Appeal fails and the same stands dismissed.” (Emphasis supplied.) 10. Corporation has rejected writ petitioner’s request by holding that death of workman cannot be considered as ‘while in service’. This assumption on the part of Corporation, in our view, is not sustainable, because, simultaneously with the order of this Court in 2013 directing payment of terminal benefits, the order of dismissal was set aside. 11. In view of the above, writ petitioner’s application for appointment on compassionate ground needs to be considered by the Corporation. 12. Shri Hosmani submitted that corporation maintains a list of applications for compassionate appointments and they will be considered in their respective seniority. 11. In view of the above, writ petitioner’s application for appointment on compassionate ground needs to be considered by the Corporation. 12. Shri Hosmani submitted that corporation maintains a list of applications for compassionate appointments and they will be considered in their respective seniority. Shri Hallikeri has no objection if the application is considered as per the norms of the Corporation. 13. In the circumstances, this appeal must fail and it is accordingly dismissed. However time granted by the Hon’ble Single Judge to consider the application within two months is modified. Corporation is directed to consider writ petitioner’s application (Annexure-B) in its seniority. 14. In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.2/2020 stands disposed of as it does not survive for consideration. No costs.