- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24971 WP No. 13485 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 13485 OF 2021 (S-REG) BETWEEN: PUSHPALATHA K W/O LATE MANJUNATHA GOWDA C L AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO 239/5 20TH MAIN ROAD 19TH CROSS VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU - 560040. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH P H., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD, CORPORATE OFFICE K R CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560001. 2. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (A & HR) BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD, CORPORATE OFFICE K R CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560001. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER WEST CIRCLE BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU - 560079. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER C & O & M DIVISION BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24971 WP No. 13485 of 2021 RAJAJINAGAR DIVISION BENGALURU - 560010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.RAVINDRA REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED:17.12.2020 BEARING NO: AAHIM(V)/ PAVRU/ ULENI/ LE/SISA/4960-61 ISSUED BY THE R-3 AUTHORITY VIDE ANNEXURE-Q HOLDING THE SAME IS ILLEGAL 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 called in question the impugned endorsement dated 17.12.2020 issued by respondent No.3-Authority vide Annexure-Q, whereby the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. 2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband, by name Manjunatha Gowda C.L., was working in the respondent company as a Probationary Mazdoor. He died on 18.04.2015 while he was in service. The petitioner submitted an application for appointment on - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24971 WP No. 13485 of 2021 compassionate ground, as per Annexure-C dated 21.09.2015. As the application was not considered, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.54604/2016. This Court, by order dated 12.10.2020, directed the respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 21.09.2015 in accordance with law, within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the said order. Thereafter, the impugned order, vide Annexure-Q dated 17.12.2020, was issued. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed. 3. The only ground for rejection of the application is that, as per the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Recruitment (Appointment on Compassionate) Regulations, 1997, the legal representatives of an employee, who was working as a Probationary Mazdoor and died while in service, are not entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds. However, the issue relating to the rights of a Probationary Mazdoor has been considered - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24971 WP No. 13485 of 2021 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in an identical case in W.P.No.81055/2013, disposed of on 09.09.2014, wherein it was held that the legal heirs of a deceased Probationary Mazdoor are entitled to seek appointment on compassionate grounds. In this regard, paragraph No.9 of the order passed in W.P.No.81055/2013, disposed of on 09.09.2014, reads as follows: “9. It is relevant to note, the petitioner's husband late Hussenappa Paraki was appointed as a Gangman in the office of the Executive Engineer, GESCOM on 11.11.1999. After six years of service, the petitioner's husband was treated as probationary Mazdoor. On 16.2.2008 he died while in service. Thereafter, the petitioner gave representation to appoint her on compassionate ground. The respondents issued endorsement as per Annexure-F stating that the petitioner's husband was a probationary Mazdoor and the petitioner cannot be appointed on compassionate ground. It was challenged W.P.No.60656/2012. This court considering the contention that the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment has observed as follows at paras.5 to 8. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24971 WP No. 13485 of 2021 "5. It is the definite case of the respondent that under regulation 6(4) of the "regulations", the petitioner a dependent of the probationary Mazdoor is disentitled to appointment on compassionate grounds, while it is the case of the petitioner that her husband, when appointed as probationary Mazdoor on regular basis, is entitled to claim benefit under the said regulations. Regulation 6 reads thus: "6. Appointment by competent Authority: (1) On receipt of the application under Regulation 5, the Head of the Office, if satisfied that the applicant fulfills all the conditions required under these Regulations, shall submit the application to the Board for its approval and upon receipt of the approval, shall issue appointment order if he is the appointing authority and if not, shall forward to the concerned authority for issuance of appointment order. (2) The appointment under sub-regulation (1) shall be made as far as possible within three months from the date of receipt of the application under Regulation 5. (3) Appointment once made under these regulations shall be final and no fresh appointment to a different post or higher post under these regulations shall be permissible. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24971 WP No. 13485 of 2021 (4) The appointment under these regulations shall not be made in the case of the dependent of a deceased person who at the time of death was on re- employment or was employed as casual labourer or on contract basis for a limited period or on adhoc appointment dehors the rules of recruitment." 6. Sub regulation (4) of Regulation 6, no doubt, disentitles the dependent of a deceased who, at the time of death was on re-employment or was employed as casual labourer or on contract basis for a limited period or on adhoc appointment dehors the rules of recruitment. (emphasis supplied) 7. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner's husband was employed as a probationary mazdoor, and not any one of the type of engagement dehors the rules of recruitment as set out in clause 6(4) of the "Regulation". In that view of the matter, it is too far fetched for the respondent to contend that petitioner, alleged dependent is disentitled to a compassionate appointment on the death of her husband a probationary Mazdoor. 8. The order Annexure-A and endorsement Annexure-B in the circumstances are unsustainable. Petitioner having made out a case for consideration - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24971 WP No. 13485 of 2021 of her application for compassionate appointment on the death of acceptance." 4. Following the above judgment, this Court has also allowed the writ petition filed by the similarly situated person in W.P.No.5605/2023. 5. In light of the view taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioner, who is similarly placed, on the grounds of parity, is entitled to the relief sought in this writ petition. The endorsement issued by the respondent No.3-Authority is found to be contrary to the finding recorded by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.81055/2013, disposed of on 09.09.2014. Therefore, the endorsement is liable to be quashed. 6. Accordingly, the following order is passed: ORDER a) The writ petition is allowed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24971 WP No. 13485 of 2021 b) The impugned endorsement dated 17.12.2020 issued by respondent No.3-Authority vide Annexure-Q, is hereby quashed. c) The respondents are hereby directed to consider the application of the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground by considering the representation in terms of regulations, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. All pending IAs, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE HA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 39