- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:799 WP No. 11397 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 11397 OF 2022 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI M K CHINNAPPA S/O LATE M G KAVERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, NELAJI VILLAGE, NAPOKLU POST, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571214. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SACHIN B. S., ADV.) AND: THE MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, BELTHANGADY BRANCH, BELTHANGADY DAKSHINA KANNADA-574214. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T P MUTHANNA, ADV.) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 01.11.2014 AND 18.02.2020 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND B AND PASS SUITABLE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND PASS SUCH OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS, AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:799 WP No. 11397 of 2022 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT ORAL ORDER The petitioner, son of Late M.G.Kaverappa who was working as Security Guard in the respondent-Bank at Belthangady is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for a direction to consider the representations dated 01.11.2014 and 18.02.2020 (Annexures-A and B) wherein the petitioner had sought for compassionate appointment as his father died while in service in the respondent-Bank on 08.06.2012. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.B.S.Sachin for petitioner and learned counsel Sri.T.P.Muthanna for respondent- Bank. Perused the writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the father of the petitioner who was working as Security Guard in the respondent-Bank died while in service on 08.06.2012. It is submitted that immediately thereafter, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:799 WP No. 11397 of 2022 the petitioner made a representation dated 01.11.2014 and as the respondent failed to consider the same, he had made one more representation dated 18.02.2020. It is the grievance of the petitioner that till this date, those representations whereby the petitioner had prayed for compassionate appointment have not been considered by the respondent-Bank. It is submitted that the respondent- Bank has Scheme of 2011, which provides for compassionate appointment. Non-consideration of representations for compassionate appointment has put the petitioner in prejudicial position. 4. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.T.P.Muthanna would submit that, in terms of 2011 scheme, the petitioner would not be entitled for compassionate appointment. Further he submits that the petition is liable to be dismissed only on the ground of delay and latches. Moreover, he submits that the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:799 WP No. 11397 of 2022 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief as prayed in the writ petition. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s father was working as Security Guard in the respondent-Bank and he died while in service on 08.06.2012. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had made representations dated 01.11.2014 and 18.02.2020 seeking compassionate appointment. But the question is as to whether the compassion remains as on this date, after more than 12 years of death of petitioner’s father. 7. Compassionate appointment is provided to a legal heir of the deceased employee only to see that the family of the deceased employee overcomes the financial difficulty due to sudden death of bread earner in the family. In the instant case, the petitioner’s family is able to survive for nearly 12 years. As such, it is clear that the petitioner would not require any compassionate - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:799 WP No. 11397 of 2022 appointment. Moreover, it is settled position of law that any legal heir of the deceased employee cannot seek compassionate appointment as a matter of right. The right to seek compassionate appointment would accrue under a scheme or Rule of that particular institution. Petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to consider his representations for compassionate appointment nearly after 10 years from the date of death of his father who was working as Security Guard in the respondent-Bank. The writ petition stands rejected on the ground of delay and latches. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51