High CourtsDIVISION BENCH(2017) 08 KAR CK 0030

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, & ANR. vs SMT SRIDEVI DESAI, & ORS.

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 30 August 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, P.S.Dinesh Kumar
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
4603 of 2017 (S-RES)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 264 words
1.

This appeal is presented by the State Government with a delay of 1,024 days.

2.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated July 23, 2014, passed by the Hon''ble Single Judge directing the State Government to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds.

3.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are, the husband of the writ petitioner was initially engaged on daily wages as Sanitary Inspector and appointed as a Junior Health Inspector in the year 1988. Thereafter, he worked uninterruptedly till 2010.

4.

During the course of his employment, he was transferred to various places. His service book was also opened by the Directorate of Municipal Administration.

5.

The petitioner''s husband passed away, while in service, in the year 2010. In these circumstances, she sought for appointment on compassionate basis by filing necessary application, within the stipulated time.

6.

The Hon''ble Single Judge has dealt with the issue in extenso, and has recorded a finding that the appellant has extracted the services of the petitioner''s husband from 1998 to 2010, and has treated him as a regular employee.

7.

In these circumstances, the Hon''ble Single Judge has directed the appellant to consider the case of the petitioner by issuing appointment on compassionate ground. We see no error in the order passed by the Hon''ble Single Judge.

8.

We find no good ground to condone the inordinate delay of 1,024 days. The application for condonation of delay is, therefore, dismissed.

9.

Consequently, the writ appeal is dismissed.

10.

We make no order as to costs.