Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 754 (KAR)

STATE OF KARNATAKA v. NARASIMHAMURTHY N.

2020-03-18

ALOK ARADHE, M.NAGAPRASANNA

body2020
ORDER : Sri S.S.Mahendra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the petitioner. Sri M. Subramanya Bhat, learned counsel for respondent. The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the parties, it is heard finally. 2. In this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have inter alia assailed the validity of the order dated 06.03.2018 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, by which the application No.5165/2016 filed by the respondent has been disposed of with the direction to the petitioners herein to consider the application submitted by the respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds under the provisions of Karnataka Civil Services (appointment on compassionate grounds) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). 3. The facts giving rise to filing of this petition briefly stated are that, the father of the respondent was employed as constable in District Armed Force and while working as a constable, the father of the respondent suffered paralysis stroke on 23.07.2011. He was examined by the Medical Board on 27.06.2012 and on 31.07.2012. The Medical Board opined that due to his present illness, the father of the respondent has developed permanent disability and unable to perform his duties effectively in police service. In view of the report submitted by the Medical Board, the State by order dated 24.01.2013 permitted to retire from services as he was incapable on medical grounds with effect from 31.01.2013. Thereafter, the father of the respondent expired on 14.03.2015. Respondent thereupon submitted an application seeking his appointment on compassionate ground. By endorsements dated 30.04.2015 and 26.06.2015, the claim of the respondent seeking appointment on compassionate basis was rejected. Thereafter, the respondent approached the Tribunal by filing an application. The Tribunal vide order dated 06.03.2018, quashed the endorsements dated 30.04.2015 and 26.06.2015 and directed the petitioner No.2 herein to consider the application submitted by the respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds under the Rules. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners have filed this petition. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State while inviting the attention of this Court to the report of the Medical Board submitted that the father of the respondent was suffering from illness which were not developed during the course of employment. It is further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated under prescription (i) appended to Rule 3(A) of the Rules. It is further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated under prescription (i) appended to Rule 3(A) of the Rules. The father of the respondent has not suffered any disability while discharging the duty. Therefore, the Tribunal grossly erred in quashing the endorsements dated 30.04.2015 and 26.06.2015. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order passed by the Tribunal. 6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 7. The relevant extract of the Medical Board reads as under: “2. Left lower limb Contractures: In view of the above mentioned problems which have caused severe weakness of Right sided limbs he has developed significant irreversible Neurological disability which have restricted his activities of daily life and preventing him from discharging his duties efficiently in the Police Department, medical board recommends voluntary retirement. Due to his present illness has developed permanent physical disability and is unable to perform his duties effectively in police service. He is medically and physically unfit to discharge duties in Government service.” On the basis of the medical report, the order dated 24.01.2013 came to be passed by the State Government, which reads as under: “No. EST(1)/75/201213, O.B.NO.13/2013 dated 24012013. On the basis of the Medical Certificate issued by the Medical Superintendent, General Hospital, Jayanagar, Bangalore to Sri.N.Narasimhaiah, APC305, DAR, Kolar, as pre Rule 273 of KCSR, he has been permitted to retire from the Government Service due to incapability on Medical grounds with effect from the afternoon of 31.01.2013.” Now we may advert to the Rule 3(A) (i) of the Rules as well as description and (i) which reads as under: “3A Appointment of dependent of Government servant retired on medical grounds: (1) without prejudice to the generality of these rules, dependents of the Government servant retired on medical grounds shall be eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. 2) All conditions of eligibility, conditions of appointment and the procedure of application and appointment except Rule 9 as applicable to dependent of decease Government servant under these rules shall mutatis mutandis apply to the dependents of the Government servant retired on medical grounds with effect from the date of his retirement on medical grounds. 2) All conditions of eligibility, conditions of appointment and the procedure of application and appointment except Rule 9 as applicable to dependent of decease Government servant under these rules shall mutatis mutandis apply to the dependents of the Government servant retired on medical grounds with effect from the date of his retirement on medical grounds. Provided that all eligible dependents of Government servant retired on medical grounds on the date of commencement of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Sixth Amendment) Rules, 2011 may apply within one year from the date of commencement of the said rules. Explanation. – for the purpose of these rules (i) “Government servant retired on medical grounds” means a Government servant who on the ground of bodily or mental infirmity is permanently incapacitated while on duty for public service and retired medical grounds as per the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules on or after the 1st day of January, 2010, as certified by the Medical Board constituted by the Department of Health and Family Welfare at district and taluk level. (ii) The words “While on duty” includes his journey to and from his place of residence to the place of work. (iii) The words “dependents” and “family members” defined in respect of deceased Government servant retired on medical grounds. (iv) In these rules, wherever the words “widow” or “widower” occurs in respect of deceased Government servant, it shall be construed as “wife” or “husband” of the Government servant retired on medical grounds.” 8. Thus, on conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is evident that the dependents of the government servant who have retired on medical grounds are entitled for recruitment on compassionate ground. Description (1) provides that a government servant retired on medical grounds while discharging the duty in public service and as per the certificate issued by the Health and Family Welfare Department, it has opined that the father of the respondent has become physically disabled and unable to perform his duties effectively in government service. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Tribunal has rightly quashed the impugned endorsements dated 30.04.2015 and 26.06.2015 and directed petitioner No.2 to consider the application submitted by the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground as per Rules. 9. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Tribunal has rightly quashed the impugned endorsements dated 30.04.2015 and 26.06.2015 and directed petitioner No.2 to consider the application submitted by the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground as per Rules. 9. The order passed by the Tribunal neither suffers from judicial infirmity nor any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. It is needless to state that petitioner No.2 shall consider the application submitted by the respondent within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today. It is made clear that, this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the case. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.