Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 39371 (KAR)

SMT THARADEVI v. MANAGING DIRECTOR

WP/12921/2025 · 2025-09-02

H T Narendra Prasad

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34428 WP No. 12921 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 12921 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SMT THARADEVI W/O. LATE H. SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/ATNO. 57, GYARAGHATTA, RAMANAHALLI POST, TIPATUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572217. (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) ALSO @ SRI. KALABHAIRAWESHWARA NILAYA, VISHWESHWARAIAH EXTENSION, 2ND STAGE, DASARAKOPPAL, HASSAN 573202. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. K SHOBHA., ADVOCATE) AND: MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE MINERALS CORPORATION LTD. TTMC 'A' BLOCK, 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, KH ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA, BANGALORE 560027. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. ANANYA RAI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M V CHARATI, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34428 WP No. 12921 of 2025 RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-A, B,C DT-09.03.2022, 17.05.2022 AND 30.01.2025 TO THE RESPONDENT AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: a) Issue writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and thereby direct the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioner as per Annexure-A, B, C dated 09.03.2022, 17.05.2022 and 30.01.2025 to the respondent. b) Further, direct the Respondent, to grant ex-gratia benefits on humanitarian grounds by considering the Petitioner’s condition. c) To grant such other and further relief so as to cost of the proceedings as this Hon’ble court deems fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34428 WP No. 12921 of 2025 2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband Sri.H.Shivanna was working in the respondent- Corporation. When he was in service, he passed away on 13.05.2021 leaving behind the petitioner and their daughter as his legal heirs. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed an application on 09.03.2022 and 17.05.2022 seeking compassionate appointment to her daughter vide Annexures-A and B. During the pendency of consideration of the said application, the petitioner’s daughter. Smt.Bindu, passed away on 07.08.2024. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 30.01.2025 vide Annexure-C seeking appointment to her son-in-law, Mr.Praveen.S.P. Since, the said representation has not been considered, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Under Rule 3 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, the provision regarding eligibility for appointment on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34428 WP No. 12921 of 2025 compassionate grounds is laid down. The said Rule reads as follows: “3. Eligibility for appointment:- (1) Appointment on compassionate grounds under these rules shall not be claimed as a matter of right and shall not be given as a matter of course. (2) Appointment under these rules shall be restricted to the dependent of a deceased Government Servant in the following order of preference, namely:- [(i) in the case of the deceased male married Government Servant, - (a) the widow; and (b) son or daughter who is chosen by the widow of the deceased Government Servant, if the widow is not eligible or for any valid reason she is not willing to accept the appointment". who were dependent on him and were living with him. Note: In case spouse is pre-deceased then preference shall be given in the order of age of children. "(ia) in the case of the deceased male unmarried Government Servant, his brother or sister, who is chosen by father and mother or in case of difference in their opinion, chosen by mother, who were dependent upon him and were living with him". - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34428 WP No. 12921 of 2025 Note: In case parents are pre-deceased then preference shall be given in the order of age of brother/sister. "(ii) in the case of the deceased female married Government Servant: (a) son or daughter who is chosen by the widower of the deceased Government Servant; and (b) widower, if the son or daughter are not eligible or for any valid reason they are not willing to accept the appointment". who were dependent on her and were living with her. Note: In case spouse is pre-deceased then preference shall be given in the order of age of children. (iia) in the case of the deceased female unmarried Government Servant, her brother or sister, who is chosen by father and mother or in case of difference in their opinion, chosen by mother, who were dependent upon her and were living with her. Note: In case parents are pre-deceased then preference shall be given in the order of age of brother/sister. (iii) in the case of deceased married Government Servant whose spouse is also no more and who has minor children, certified guardian of the minor children who is living with them and takes care of the minor children as per the provisions of relevant law. (3) [xxxxx] Omitted - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34428 WP No. 12921 of 2025 (4) A person against whom at the time of making application a criminal case is under investigation or trial, on the charge of having committed murder of the deceased government Servant or for abetting the commission of such offence shall not be eligible for appointment under these rules.” 4. From the foregoing, it is evident that the son-in-law of the deceased Government servant is not entitled to claim appointment on compassionate grounds under the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996. 5. The petitioner has therefore failed to make out a case for issuance of a mandamus directing the respondent to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner. Consequently, the petition lacks merit. 6. In view of the above, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE DM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68