- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10110 WP No. 15775 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 15775 OF 2013 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. M.A. JAGADISHA S/O LATE ANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDING AT MARUTHINAGARA BEHIND ANJANEYA TEMPLE ARASIKERE TOWN HASSAN DISTRICT-573103 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD (KPTCL) CAUVERY BHAVAN BANGALORE-560 009 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (CHESCOM) MYSORE-570 012 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER O & M CIRCLE (ELECTRICAL) CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (CHESCOM) SANTHEPETE, B.M. ROAD HASSAN-573 201 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (CHESCOM) Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10110 WP No. 15775 of 2013 B.H. ROAD, ARASIKERE HASSAN DIST-573103 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PADMA UTTUR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 3; SRI. H.V.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. N.K.GUPTA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT NO.CEA(«)/G¯É¤/¸À¯É/¹¸À/12-13/2575-77 ¢:1/3/2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an endorsement bearing No.¥À.¸ÀA:CEA(«)/G¯É¤/¸À¯É/¹¸À/12-13/2575-77 dated 01.03.2013 issued by respondent No.3 by which, his application for appointment on compassionate grounds was rejected. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to consider his application dated 10.12.2012 for appointment on compassionate ground. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10110 WP No. 15775 of 2013 2. The petitioner contends that his father was working as a Mechanic Grade-II in the office of the respondent No.2 and died while in service on 05.09.2012 leaving behind the petitioner, his mother, two sisters and two brothers. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application on 10.12.2012 for appointment on compassionate grounds along with all the relevant documents. He contends that as per the Circulars in force dated 23.09.2011 and 20.02.2013, the respondent No.1 had fixed certain criteria for processing applications for appointment on compassionate grounds. As per the Circular issued by the respondent No.1 dated 20.02.2013, the income limit was fixed at a sum of Rs.26,066/- per month. The petitioner claims that in order to substantiate that his family income was less than the threshold income, he had placed on record the income certificates issued by the Tahasildar, Arasikere, concerning him and his mother. The petitioner claims that he has studied up to 9th standard and was entitled for the post of a Junior Lineman. He also obtained a consent from his mother for appointing the petitioner on compassionate basis. He contends that his two brothers were also employed under the respondent No.2 and were working as Linemen but - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10110 WP No. 15775 of 2013 were separated from the petitioner’s family long back even during the lifetime of his father. The respondent No.4 while considering the application of the petitioner, issued a checklist of documents and recommended that the petitioner is eligible for employment on compassionate basis. He contended that at the time of enquiry, the respondent No.4 had assessed the total annual income of the petitioner’s family including the income of his brothers, at Rs.4,32,524/- which was above the ceiling limit. The petitioner contends that a circular relating to appointment on compassionate grounds was issued on 23.09.2011, in terms of which, the ceiling limit was fixed at a sum of Rs.18,953/- per month in respect of those applications submitted between 01.01.2011 to 30.06.2011. He contends that no ceiling limit was prescribed in respect of applications received after 30.06.2011. Therefore, he contends that the application of the petitioner must have been considered without reference to any ceiling limit. 3. The petitioner contends that the respondent No.2 without considering this, applied the ceiling limit prescribed under the Circular dated 20.02.2013 and held that the income - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10110 WP No. 15775 of 2013 of the family of the petitioner exceeded the limit prescribed and rejected his application. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the father of the petitioner died while in service on 05.09.2012 and the Circular dated 23.09.2011 issued by the respondent No.1 relating to appointment on compassionate grounds prescribed a ceiling limit in respect of the applications submitted for the period from 01.01.2011 to 30.06.2011. He contends that there was no ceiling limit prescribed as on 05.09.2012 when the father of the petitioner died. Thus, he contends that the respondent No.3 must have considered the application of the petitioner without reference to any ceiling limit. 6. The Writ Petition is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 3 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 4 who contend in unison that the computation of the total income of the family was one of the basis for determining an application for compassionate - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10110 WP No. 15775 of 2013 appointment. They contend that though under the Circular dated 23.09.2011, no monthly ceiling limit was prescribed for the period beyond 30.06.2011, the respondent No.1 had issued a Circular dated 20.02.2013 prescribing different ceiling limits for considering the applications for appointment on compassionate grounds. In terms of this, for the period from 01.07.2012 to 31.12.2012, the monthly ceiling limit was a sum of Rs.26,066/-. They contend that for the purpose of considering an application for appointment on compassionate ground, the income of the family from all sources of all persons, whether living separately or jointly including earnings of other family members has to be considered. They contend that the two brothers of the petitioner were already employed with the respondent No.2-Chamundeshwari Electric Supply Company Limited ('CHESCOM' for short) and therefore, their income also had to be taken into consideration and if done, the petitioner was not entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground as income was beyond the ceiling limit prescribed. In support of their contention, they relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.30918/2012 (disposed off on 29.05.2013). - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10110 WP No. 15775 of 2013 7. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the word 'Family' is defined under Regulation 2(1)(b) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees' Recruitment (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Regulations, 1997 (henceforth referred to as 'the Regulations, 1997'), which does not include members who are not living with the family of the deceased employee. He, therefore, contends that the income of the brothers of the petitioner could not be taken into account and it is only his income as well as the income of his mother that had to be taken into consideration and if done, he was entitled to compassionate appointment. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 3 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 4. 9. The father of the petitioner died on 05.09.2012 and as on that day, the Circular that was in force was the one issued by the respondent No.1 on 23.09.2011. Clause 3 of the said Circular reads as follows: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10110 WP No. 15775 of 2013 "3. Computation of the total income of the family as per Regulation 4(1):- The Income certificate issued by the Tahsildar with regard to the total family income has to be verified to determine the financial crisis or destitution of the family. The total recurring monthly income of the family from all sources of all the persons whether living separately or jointly including earnings of other family members (even if they are working in KPTCL/ESCOMS or any other Government Department) shall be less than the income prescribed by the Board from time to time. The monthly income ceiling limit of `.6000/- P.M fixed vide Circular No:B5/721/80-81 dated:02.05.1997 holds good for all the applications submitted upto 16.08.2009. Consequent to amendment to Regulation 4(1)(a) of the KEB/B5/721/80-87 (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Regulations 1997, vide Notification No.KPTCL/B5/721/80-81 dated: 17.08.2009, the monthly income ceiling limit is computed and the details are as follows: For application submitted from 17.08.2009 to 31.05.2010 ceiling limit is `.16018.00 P.M - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10110 WP No. 15775 of 2013 For application submitted from 01.06.2010 to 31.10.2010 ceiling limit is `.17834.00 P.M For application submitted from 01.11.2010 to 31.12.2010 ceiling limit is `.18331.00 P.M For application submitted from 01.01.2011 to 30.06.2011 ceiling limits is `.18953.00 P.M The monthly Income ceiling limit is variable as and when there is increase in the rates of DA/HRA or revision in the scale of pay of the post of First Division Assistant in State Government. The computed ceiling limit will be intimated periodically." (Underlining supplied) 10. It specifically provided that the monthly income ceiling limit is variable as and when there is an increase in the rates of DA/HRA or revision in the scale of pay of the post of First Division Assistant in State Government, the computed ceiling limit will be intimated periodically. Though the petitioner contends that his two brothers were living separately, nothing is placed on record before this Court to establish the said fact. Even otherwise, it is undisputed that the two brothers of the petitioner are already employed with the respondent No.2- CHESCOM. If the family members of the petitioner are already - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:10110 WP No. 15775 of 2013 gainfully employed, it is too much for the petitioner to expect the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited ('KPTCL') to provide compassionate appointment, when his two brothers do not show any concern/compassion towards him. The respondent No.1 has issued the Circular dated 23.09.2011 for uniform application to all the employees of KPTCL and CHESCOM. The Court cannot be expected to conduct any enquiry to find out whether the members of the family of the petitioner are really supporting the petitioner or not. This is one of the criteria that the KPTCL and/or CHESCOM has to take into consideration while considering the application for appointment on compassionate ground. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 3, the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.30918/2012 (referred supra) in similar circumstances, had upheld the applicability of the computation of the total income of the family as per Regulation 4(1) of the Regulations, 1997 and held that the income of the family from all sources of all persons whether living separately or jointly, including the earnings of other family members should be taken into consideration and if it is less than the income prescribed by the KPTCL from time to - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:10110 WP No. 15775 of 2013 time, then an application for appointment on compassionate grounds could be considered. As stated by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 4 as per the Circular dated 20.02.2013 issued by the Director (Admn. and HR), KPTCL, the monthly ceiling limit in respect of applications submitted for the period from 01.07.2012 to 31.12.2012 was a sum of Rs.26,066/- but the income of the petitioner from all the sources was way beyond the monthly income limit fixed by the KPTCL. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds. There is no error in the respondent No.3 issuing the impugned endorsement warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39