- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1715 WP No. 100494 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO.100494 OF 2024 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN: SANGAPPA S/O. BASAPPA TORAGER, SINCE DIED BY HIS LR., BASAVARAJ S/O. SANGAPPA TOTAGER, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCCU:NIL, R/O:HEAD POST JALIHAL, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI M. S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE) AND: DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC, BAGALKOTM DIVISION, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT – 587 101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRASHANT HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTI9ON OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION OF NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 15-07-2020 BEARING NO. VAAKARA SAA/BHAVI/ SIBBANDI/ NEMAKA/C5/1333/19-20 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-C, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. ISSUE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION OF NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 14-08-2023 BEARING NO. VAAKARASAA/ BHAVI/ SIBBANDI/ NEMAKA/ C5/ 1973/ 2022-23 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT IS HEREIWTH PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-E. ISSUE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN NATURE MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO APPOINT THE Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1715 WP No. 100494 of 2024 PETITIONER ON COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THERIEN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: 1. Issue a writ order or direction of nature of certiorari by quashing the endorsement dated 15-07-2020 bearing no. VaaKaRaSaa/ Bhavi/ Sibbandi/ Nemaka/ C5/ 1333/ 19-20 issued by the respondent vide Annexure-C, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Issue writ, order or direction of nature of Certiorari by quashing the endorsement date 14-08-2023 bearing no. VaaKaRaSaa/ Bhavi/ Sibbandi/ Nemaka/ C5/1973/ 2022-23 issued by the respondent is hereiwth produced and marked as Annexure-E. 3. Issue writ, order or direction in nature mandamus directing the respondent to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds, in the interest of justice and equity. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1715 WP No. 100494 of 2024 4. Pass such other order or direction that is deemed fit in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Heard the learned counsel Shri M.s. Hallikeri appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel Shri Prashant Hosamani appearing for the respondent. 3. The father of the petitioner joins the services of the Corporation on 12.12.1996. In the year 2009 on the ground of illness and owing to his absence, he was terminated by the Corporation. Aggrieved by the said termination, the petitioner is said to have raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No.13 of 2016. During the pendency of the dispute, the father of the petitioner dies. The tribunal allows the dispute in terms of its order dated 29.06.2020, notwithstanding the passing away of the employee, holding that the termination by the Corporation is wholly illegal, and directs all the terminal benefits to be paid to the family of the deceased. 4. A representation then springs for seeking appointment on compassionate ground on 15.07.2020. This - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1715 WP No. 100494 of 2024 comes to be rejected on the score the order of the tribunal is silent about grant of an appointment on compassionate ground or otherwise. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the said endorsement so issued. 5. Learned counsel M.S. Hallikeri appearing for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal even after the death of the employee had held termination to be illegal and directed all consequential benefits to be paid to the petitioner. Therefore, the Tribunal need not render any finding about grant compassionate appointment. 6. Learned counsel Shri Prashant Hosamani appearing for the respondent would vehemently refute the submission to contend that though terminal benefits are settled in favour of the employee, since no consequential benefits of a kind of appointment, on compassionate ground was observed or ordered by the Tribunal. Therefore, the rejection does not warrant any interference. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1715 WP No. 100494 of 2024 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions addressed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The father of the petitioner getting terminated from service is a matter of record and the termination being set aside with a direction to grant all consequential benefits in I.D. No.13 of 2016, is also a matter of record. The order which set aside the order of dismissal of the petitioner, reads as follows: “The petition filed by petitioner under S.10(1)(c) of I.D. Act, 1947 is hereby partly allowed. The impugned order of dismissal dated 08.01.2010 passed by respondent / Corporation against deceased petitioner is hereby set aside. The petitioners are entitled for all the service benefits of deceased petitioner without back wages for the period of absenteeism of deceased petitioner. Send a copy of Award to the State Government for publication under S.17 of Industrial Disputes Act.” 9. It was held that the petitioner was entitled to all service benefits, without back wages for the period of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1715 WP No. 100494 of 2024 absenteeism, the Corporation is said to have settled all the terminal benefits to the family of the deceased employee, the representation for compassionate appointment is submitted by the petitioner which comes to be rejected by the impugned endorsement dated 14.08.2023. 10. The reason for rendering the endorsement is on the face of it is illegal, as the Tribunal could not have directed consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. The Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal, holding that the family was entitled to all service benefits. ] 11. If a dependent is entitled to for consideration of compassionate appointment, on the death of the employee, as the death was during the subsistence of the dispute, and the dispute having gone in favour of the employee. The respondent was bound to consider the application / representation for compassionate appointment, in accordance with law. In that light, the endorsement is rendered unsustainable. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1715 WP No. 100494 of 2024 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The endorsements dated 15.07.2020 and 14.08.2023 issued by the respondent vide Annexures-C and E respectively stand quashed. (iii) The respondent is directed to reconsider the representation of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with law within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not earlier. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE VNP/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16