Sri Rajanna vs State of Karnataka

A.N. Venugopala Gowda

Petitioner''s father Sri V. Byatappa employed as Poura Karmika in the Town Municipal Council, Shidlaghatta, died on 11.11.2008, while in service of the 2nd respondent. Petitioner made an application on 29.06.2009 seeking appointment on compassionate ground. Said application having not been considered, petitioner made a further representation on 15.12.2010, 2nd respondent issued an endorsement dated 23.12.2010, as at Annexure-M, directing the petitioner to approach Court for relief, on the ground that late Byatappa had two wives as per the family tree. Smt. Lakshmidevamma second wife of late V. Byatappa has sworn to an affidavit dated 09.12.2010 as at Annexure-E stating that she has no objection for the petitioner being granted appointment on compassionate ground on account of the untimely death of V. Byatappa. Without taking into consideration the said affidavit, the impugned endorsement has been issued. There is yet another reason assigned in the impugned endorsement that the application for appointment on compassionate ground was filed on 15.12.2008 after lapse of about 2 years.

Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the record.

There is no dispute that V. Byatappa was employed as a Poura Karmika in the office of Town Municipal Council, Shidiaghatta. He died on 11.11.2008, which is evident from the death certificate as at Annexure-A and the confirmation letter of the 2nd respondent dated 30.01.2010, as at Annexure-B. Petitioner has submitted an application dated 29.06.2009, as at Annexure-F, to appoint him on compassionate ground. Since Smt. Lakshmidevamma, 2nd wife of late V. Byatappa has sworn to an affidavit as at Annexure-E, wherein it is stated that she has no objection for the petitioner being appointed on compassionate ground on account of death of V. Byatappa, there is an obligation on the part of the 2nd respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. While issuing the impugned endorsement the 2nd respondent has not considered the affidavit of Smt. Lakshmidevamma as at Annexure-E. Thus, lack of application of mind and consideration of the matter in accordance with law is apparent. The impugned endorsement is arbitrary.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement issued by the 2nd respondent is quashed. 2nd respondent is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, as early as practicable within an outer time limit of two months from the date a copy of this order is received by it or is produced by the petitioner, whichever is earlier.

No costs.