AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. B.S. Patil, J. - Petitioner is the son of one Mehaboobsab Buddesab Tonnikeri. The said Mehaboobsab was working as a peon in Sri Kumareshwar Arts and Commerce College, Hanagal, which is an aided institution. He died while in service on 31-12-2012 leaving behind his wife and children. Petitioner gave an application on 31-1-2013 to the respondent-institution requesting to give him appointment on compassionate ground. The management appears to have taken a decision in the meeting held on 21-8-2013 to appoint petitioner on compassionate ground and recommended the same to the respondent-authorities seeking approval. Indeed, a copy of the resolution passed by the management is produced at Annexure-C.
The grievance of the petitioner is that despite resolution passed by the management and a proposal submitted seeking permission to make appointment of petitioner on compassionate ground the 3rd respondent-Regional joint Director, Department of Higher Education, Belagavi Division, Dharwad has not responded favourably. On 13-1-2014 a letter had been written vide Annexure-E addressed to the management informing them that as per the Government direction dated 1-2-2002 appointment on compassionate ground could not be considered in aided institution and therefore the proposal was returned. The said communication, which is produced at Annexure-E had been challenged by petitioner in this writ petition.
Petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground as peon.
Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner at the outset placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the High Court of Karnataka, Gulbarga Bench on 8-11-2012 in W.P. No. 81882 of 2009 submits that it had been specifically held in the said judgment by referring to and considering the very direction issued by the State Government as per circular/communication dated 1-1-2002 and also by examining the effect of Rule 8(2) of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Collegiate Education) Rules, 2003, that as long as the relevant rules namely Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, framed by the State Government were made applicable to the aided institutions receiving grant-in-aid it would not be open for the respondent-authorities to contend that for filling up of such vacancies arising on account of death of the employee, Government was not responsible to meet the salary and allowances. This finding had been recorded by this Court while repelling the contention urged by the State Government that Rule 8(2) of the Karnataka Educational institutions (Collegiate Education) Rules, 2003, provided that any vacancy that would arise in the non-teaching posts after 1-3-2001 on account of retirement, resignation, removal, dismissal and death, etc., had to remain permanently unaided and could be filled by the management on condition that salary and other allowances had to be paid from its own sources.
Therefore, it is clear that this Court after examining the very question that is now raised in this case has ruled vide its judgment in the case of Bhimashankar v. State of Karnataka and others, in W.P. No. 81882 of 2009 that the State and its authorities cannot deny such benefit that flows from the provisions contained in the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 to the dependents of the deceased employee who seek compassionate appointment.
In the light of the law laid down by this Court the impugned communication which is wholly and solely based on the Government communication dated 1-2-2002 is set aside. A direction is issued to the 4th and 5th respondents to re-forward the proposal within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to respondent 2 and respondent 2 shall thereafter consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law in the light of this order within a further period of eight weeks thereafter.