- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4407 WP No. 100147 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 100147 OF 2023 (S-RES) BETWEEN: KUMARI. RADHA D/O HONNURAPPA DEVAGIRI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: UN-EMPLOYEE, R/O: NO.15, NEAR BANKAPUR CHOWK, 4TH CROSS, INDIRA NAGAR, P.B. ROAD, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580 024. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA A. PUROHIT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGER UNION BANK OF INDIA, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI-580 020, (EARLIER J.C. NAGAR BRANCH, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD). 2. ASST. GENERAL MANAGER (EBD) UNION BANK OF INDIA, HR DEPARTMENT, EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DIVISION, CENTRAL OFFICE, UNION BANK BHAVAN, 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARGA, MUMBAI-400 021. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GIRISH S. HULAMANI, ADVOCATE R1-R2) Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4407 WP No. 100147 of 2023 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Raghavendra.A.Purohit., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Girish S.Hulamani., counsel for respondents 1 and 2 have appeared in person. 2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order/communication dated:13.12.2022 passed by the second respondent in bearing No.HR:EBD:F- 2160:N-14975:2022 vide Annexure-M and issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue an order of appointment to the petitioner for any suitable post in pursuance and by considering the application for employment submitted on compassionate ground dated:11.11.2020 with the first respondent bearing No.Nil vide Annexure-D. 3. The brief facts are these: The mother of the petitioner was working as a ‘Sweeper” in the earlier Corporation Bank (After merger of the said bank - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4407 WP No. 100147 of 2023 now Union Bank of India) at J.C.Nagar Branch, Hubli. Her service was also absorbed w.e.f. 01.04.2006 and she died on 27.10.2020 due to Covid-19 pandemic. After her death, the petitioner being the daughter has submitted an application to the first respondent for appointment on the compassionate ground. After visit to the place of the petitioner, the Manager - the first respondent has recommended the case of the petitioner to its Higher Authority for consideration. However, the second respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner and issued an endorsement dated:13.12.2022 stating that the family is not living in financial destitution or in penury or without any means of livelihood. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the captioned Writ Petition on several grounds as setout in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 4. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Counsel Sri.Raghavendra A.Purohit., in presenting his arguments submits that the financial condition of the petitioner is not stable. He argued by saying that the petitioner’s father is a retired employee and one of brother is pursuing his studies - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4407 WP No. 100147 of 2023 and other brother is residing separately and working. He vehemently contends that the Manager opined that the financial position of the family was not good, however, on an erroneous approach, the second respondent has rejected the claim of the petitioner. Counsel therefore, submits that an appropriate order may be passed. Counsel Sri.Girish S.Hulmani., justified the action on the part of the second respondent. He argued by saying that the second respondent taking note of the guidelines rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. Counsel therefore, submits that the Writ Petition may be dismissed. 5. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 6. The facts are sufficiently stated and they do not require reiteration. The issue revolves around a narrow compass and relates to the rejection of the application seeking appointment on the compassionate grounds. Suffice it to note that the mother of the petitioner was ‘Sweeper’ in the Bank. After her death the application was filed by the petitioner seeking appointment on the compassionate grounds. It is - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4407 WP No. 100147 of 2023 significant to note that the Manager after due inquiry, opined that the financial position of the family was not good. However, the second respondent rejected the claim solely on the ground that the family is not in the financial restitution. This is untenable. The reason is simple. As already noted above, the petitioner is one of the daughter and the father is the retired servant and he is getting the pension of Rs.15,636/-. Taking note of the cost of living as of today, the pension may not be sufficient for the survival. Furthermore, when the Manager has already opined that the financial position of the family was not good, there was no impediment for the second respondent to consider the opinion of the Manager while considering the application. Therefore, this Court deems it proper to set aside the endorsement. 7. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The communication dated:13.12.2022 passed by the second respondent in bearing No.HR:EBD:F-2160:N-14975:2022 vide Annexure-M is quashed and a Mandamus is ordered directing the second respondent to reconsider the application keeping in mind the present cost of living and pass order in accordance - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4407 WP No. 100147 of 2023 with law, within eight weeks from the receipt of certified copy of this court. 8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE RH LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 39