SHRI SHIVANANDAYYA vs THE DIRECTOR & ORS

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the records.

The petitioner has called in question the endorsement issued by respondent No.3 dated 08.01.2013 in rejecting his application for

compassionate appointment.

One Sri Basayya Shivayogimath father of the petitioner was working as Lineman under respondent No.4 and while in service, he died on

30.08.1980. As on the date of death of the said person, the petitioner was hardly two months old (minor) .

It appears after attaining the age of majority he presented an application on 24.07.1999. The respondent No.3 rejected the appl ication on the

ground that, the application should have been fi led on or before 01.06.1999, even considering that the petitioner has attained the age of majority,

even then the said application was f iled belatedly and there was delay of 1 month 23 days. The petitioner''s counsel in fact does not deny these

facts and he admits there is a delay of 1 month 23 days in f il ing such appl ication.

The question arose before this court is that whether such delay could have been condoned by the authorities in order to consider the application

for compassionate appointment. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued before this court that, there are other

circumstances show that, the family is in a very bad condition and there is no source to the fami ly, and the petitioner richly deserve for the

compassionate appoint. But he failed to show this court that, whether there are any speci fic provisions or under any law for the time being in force

the respondents have got power to condone the delay even for one day or one month or one year, under the relevant Rules so that, the court can f

ind fault with the orders impugned under the petition.

In this background, if the provisions under the special scheme i.e., the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees'' Recruitment (Appointment on

Compassionate Grounds) Regulations, 1997, there is no such provision is available for condonation of delay i f any belated appl ication is fi led. It

is worth to mention here that, the conditions for appointment as enumerated under the regulation 5 of the above said Regulation which reads thus;

Appl ication for Appointment : -

Every dependent of a deceased Board employee, seeking appointment under these regulations shal l make an appl ication along wi th al l suppor

ting records/documents WITHIN ONE YEAR from the date of death of the Board Employee,, in such form, as may be notif ied by the Board f

rom time to time, to the Head of the Off ice under whom the deceased Board employees was working. Provided that in the case of a minor, appl

ication shal l be made wi thin a per iod of ONE YEAR af ter attaining majori ty.

Therefore on perusal of the above said provision it clears of the doubt that, regulations fixes the particular period of time, within that time after

the death of employee the appl ication for compassionate appointment shal l be f iled. The mandatory provision requires that an appl ication shal l

be fi led within one year from the date of the death of the board employee. Provided i f in the case of minor, appl ication shal l be made within a

period of one year after attaining the age of majority. There is no proviso or exception given to this, the employer can exercise its discretion for

condoning the delay if any in fi l ing the application in delayed manner. When there is speci f ic limitation period is f ixed in the private statute or

regulation, which is a sel f contended enactment or the Regulation, then such period of l imitation has to be strictly construed by the court.

Therefore, in such an eventuality the general provision of Limitation Act cannot be introduced into such enactment, unless the legislatures

themselves did not feel it to introduce into the said statute or the regulation.

The learned counsel also did not bring to my notice any decision which straight away appl icable to show that, the employer has got any

discretion to exercise the powers even by condoning the delay in making the appl ication.

Therefore, in the absence of such materials before court, when the courts are admonishing justice according to law, though the court may

consider that the petitioner may have a case otherwise than the limitation point but the law does not provide any power to the employer to condone

the delay and entertain the appl ication. The court by means of exercising its powers cannot be introduced such powers, which is conspicuously left

out to by legislatures or the law makers.

Under the above said circumstances, as the appl ication f iled by the petitioner admittedly belated, that he fi led the application after 1 month

23 days after one year of attaining the age of majority his appl ication is barred by l imitation. As such, the 3rd respondent has rightly passed the

orders rejecting the appl ication. I do not find any strong reasons to interfere with such order. Hence the petition is also devoid of merits and the

same is liable to be dismissed, accordingly dismissed.