Smt. Indumati vs The State of Karnataka and Others

Anand Byrareddy

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

The petitioner claims that her husband who was working as a Gangman with the respondent at Chintamani Town had met with an accident whereby he was electrocuted, as on 29.6.2005. The petitioner has two children by her deceased husband and they were aged 8 and 5 and also her father-in-law and mother-in-law, who are aged and all of them are left without any source of livelihood on account of the death of her husband and therefore, had approached the respondent seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. In the very first instance the respondent had issued a reply at Annexure-"D" that she would be provided appointment on compassionate grounds within one month from 29.6.2003. However, there was no further action taken in providing such employment and over the years, the petitioner has struggled to keep herself and her family alive with the fond hope that the respondents would provide her employment. However, the respondents have resiled from the promise held out as per Annexure-"D" and paid a paltry turn of Rs.1,80,000/- as compensation, which the petitioner has refused to receive since she would need employment to sustain her family and not monetary compensation. It is in that background the petitioner is before this Court in view of the respondents having failed to provide such employment even after having promised to do so.

The respondents have entered appearance to state that the petitioner is not entitled to any such appointment as a matter of right. Though Annexure-"D" was issued, the Regulations that govern the respondents do not provide for provision of such appointment. However, the respondents have paid a substantial sum of Rs.1,89,966/- as compensation as on 18.7.2009 which for reason best known to the petitioner, she has not received the same and has continued to demand employment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner does not have any vested right in seeking employment on compassionate grounds. Further by shser efflux of time, the object of providing employment is lost and since the respondents have paid a substantial sum, it would enable the petitioner to tide over any hardship she suffers on account of the untimely death of her husband. Therefore, the petition does not merit consideration.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would however insist count that the petitioner having lost her husband in an accident while he was the employee of the respondents, the respondents are bound to compensate the petitioner by providing employment, which cannot be denied. Though it is not a matter of right, circumstances are present whereby such employment is warranted as several lives are at stake. Therefore would plead that there shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for provision of such employment.

Having regard to the settled legal position, the claim of She petitioner cannot be entertained at this point of time. Notwithstanding the unfortunate circumstance that the petitioner''s husband is said to have died while in employment of the respondent without entering upon the question whether he was a permanent employer or otherwise, which itself is in doubt, sheer efflux of time would take away the object of providing employment to the petitioner. The fact that the respondents have deposited a sum of Rs.1,89,966/-for the benefit of the petitioner, that ought to have been withdrawn and it is inexplicable as to why the petitioner has not done so. Therefore, the petition does not warrant any interference.

Incidentally, it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount deposited is intimated to the petitioner only now and the same has been deposited before the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation without notice to the petitioner and as such the petitioner is entitled to interest on such deposit. It is for the petitioner to raise a claim for interest before the appropriate forum.

With that observation the petition stands deposed of.