- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4244-DB WA No. 100695 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO.100695 OF 2023 (S-RES) BETWEEN: IRANNA, S/O LATE RANGAPPA JANGAWAD, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. NEERALAKERI VILLAGE, TQ. DIST. BAGALKOTE. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. LINGRAJ MARADI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, HESCOM CORPORATE OFFICE, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELE), O & M CIRCLE, HESCOM, K.K. COLONY, MEGA BUILDING, VIJAYAPUR. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE), O & M DIVISION, HESCOM, BAGALKOTE. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02-08-2023 PASSED IN W.P.NO.106844/2019 (S-RES) BY THE SINGLE JUDGE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4244-DB WA No. 100695 of 2023 THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) This intra-court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, is filed by the petitioner questioning the correctness and validity of the order dated 02.08.2023 passed in W.P. No.106844/2019, whereunder the petitioner’s prayer for quashing the rejection of request for compassionate appointment and consequential direction to provide him compassionate appointment has been rejected. 2. Heard Sri. Lingaraj Maradi, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the entire writ appea papers. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge committed a grave error in - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4244-DB WA No. 100695 of 2023 dismissing the writ petition without appreciating the fact that the petitioner, who is the son of the deceased employee of the respondents-Hubli Electricity Supply Company Limited (HESCOM) would be entitled for compassionate appointment under the scheme prevailing in the respondent-HESCOM. He submits that there was a civil suit pending between the first wife and the second wife and children of the deceased employee, which ended in a compromise. Thereafter the petitioner approached the authorities seeking compassionate appointment which is rejected. Further, learned counsel would submit that, in terms of the scheme, the appellant/petitioner would be entitled for compassionate appointment. 4. We have gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the writ appeal papers. 5. The petitioner’s father, who was an employee of the HESCOM, died on 25.02.2001 while in service. The mother of the petitioner submitted an application on - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4244-DB WA No. 100695 of 2023 04.12.2001 seeking compassionate appointment for her son i.e., the petitioner. The said application was rejected by endorsement dated 20.12.2002. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation on 26.09.2018, and approached this Court in the year 2019. There is an inordinate delay in approaching this Court. The purpose and object of providing companionate appointment is to see that family of the deceased servant gets over immediate financial distress due to the sudden death of the bread winner. But, in the instant case, the need to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner would not remain for so long since the petitioner and the family of the deceased has been able to survive all these years without the support of the bread earner. The learned Single Judge at paragraph 7 of the impugned order has observed that, if the family could survive for 22 long years without the support of the bread winner of the family, the need for compassionate appointment has therefore vanished. The learned Single Judge rightly placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of J & K and Others Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, reported in - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4244-DB WA No. 100695 of 2023 (2006)5 SCC 766 has dismissed the writ petition which does not call for any interference. There is no merit in the appeal, and it is also seen that there is delay of 87 days in filing appeal. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed both on merits and on the ground of delay. In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending I.As., if any, are disposed of as not surviving for consideration. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE KMS, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 3