Karnataka Electricity Board vs B. Harish Malya

K.A. Swami, Ag.C.J.

This Appeal is preferred against the order dated 3rd June 1992 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 10851 of 1992. Learned Single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the order challenged in the Writ Petition and directed the appellant to consider the petitioner''s request for appointment on compassionate grounds within three months from the date of receipt of the order.

Contention of the appellant is that the respondent''s father died on 23.11.1971 and on that date respondent was 12 years old, as such he attained majority in the year 1977; whereas the application was filed on 21.6.1983 long after the expiry of three years from the date of attaining majority; therefore it was beyond time; hence the learned Single Judge was not justified in directing the appellant to consider the application.

Paragraph 5 of the Scheme contained in the Official Memorandum dated 16.4.1986 in No. KEB: B5: 721:80-81 - Annexure C - to the Writ Petition, reads thus:

From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that an application is required to be made within three years on attaining the majority, if at the time of death of the official the son or the daughter or the person eligible for appointment as per the Scheme were to be a minor. In the instant case, as already pointed out, respondent was 12 years old on the date of death of his father who died on 23.11.1971, as such, he attained majority in the year 1977. Hence, he should have made an application in the year 1980. Whereas the application has been made in the year 1983 which has been rejected on the ground that it is made beyond the period of three years from the date of attaining majority. Paragraph 5 of the scheme specifically stipulates that an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds has to be made within three years from the date of attaining majority. The appellant is justified in rejecting the application of the respondent which is filed beyond the period of three years on his attaining majority.

It is contended by Sri Ramachandra Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondent, that as the scheme itself is framed on compassionate grounds it should be liberally construed; that even if an application is filed beyond three years the Board can entertain such an application and pass appropriate orders. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a Decision of this Court in MARANNA v. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR., W.P. No. 9534 of 1998 DD 13th January 1989 That was a case in which an application seeking employment on compassionate grounds was filed well in time. However the Writ Petition was rejected on the ground that the Petitioner was guilty of laches in approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was in this background this Court held that the delay in approaching this Court should not be made a ground to deny the relief that too in the matter of seeking public employment. Relevant portion of the order reads as follows:

"4. When the application was made on 2.3.1983 well in time his mother was told that the same could have been made within three years from the date of death of the father of the Petitioner, and when the application was made after attaining majority he was told that it was filed after he attained the age of twenty one years. But the representations made on 2.3.1983 and 14.5.1985 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds were well in time. They were rejected arbitrarily.

However, it is contended on behalf of K.E.B. very strenuously that the petitioner ought to have approached the Court in the year 1983 when the first endorsement was issued and as he waited for over a period of five years, he is not entitled to any relief. It is further strenuously contended that it is not permissible for the petitioner to take the benefit of the scheme enunciated on 16.4.1986 because by that time he had attained 21 years. The mere fact that the petitioner did not approach this Court in the year 1983, when it was incumbent upon the respondents to appoint him on compassionate grounds, does not disentitle him seeking the relief. In the matter of public employment the delay cannot be viewed so seriously as to affect the very livelihood of a person. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the respondents as to the delay is rejected. From the facts stated above, it is apparent that the petitioner has been arbitrarily denied the appointment on compassionate grounds".

Therefore, the aforesaid Decision is clearly distinguishable as it does not apply to the case of an applicant seeking appointment on compassionate grounds but has filed the application - beyond the period prescribed under the Scheme.

We are concerned with the Scheme as framed by the Board. The applicant seeking employment under the Scheme is required to file the application - within the time specified in the Scheme. Therefore, the application ought to have been filed within, three years from the date of attaining majority. As the application is filed beyond the prescribed time, appellant is justified in rejecting the same. Hence we are of the view that the learned Single Judge is not correct in directing the appellant to consider the application of the respondent which is filed beyond the time limit.

Accordingly, Writ Appeal is allowed. The order dated 3rd June 1992 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. Consequently, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.