VINOD, vs. UNION OF INDIA,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2018 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.105171 OF 2016 (S-CAT) BETWEEN

VINOD S/O GURUVAPPA GURAV AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: NIL R/O DYANESHWARNAGAR A/P KINHE, BESIDE MARATA MANDALA HIGH SCHOOL, KARNATAKA STATE DIST: BELAGAVI ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.H.M.DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE)

AND

2 BANGALORE-560001

(BY SRI.MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1- R4)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:25.01.2016 PASSED BY THE CAT AT BENGALURU IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00835 /2015 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE SAID APPLICATION AS PRAYER FOR.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, NARAYANA SWAMY, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to issue a writ of certiorari and to quash the order dated 25.01.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) in Original Application No.170/00835/2015 produced at Annexure-C. By the said order, the Tribunal has rejected the application.

3 son who is living separately; and an unmarried son and a daughter. After the death of the father of the petitioner, the family of the deceased fell into financial destitution. As the things stood thus, the petitioner, who is eligible to get job on compassionate appointment, made a claim before the respondents requesting to appoint him to any post on compassionate grounds. The 3rd respondent ignoring the scheme passed an order dated 09.01.2015 rejecting the claim of the applicant stating the case for compassionate appointment was not considered by the Committee as per the “relevant rules” and instructions. The same has been challenged before the Tribunal in Original Application No.170/00835/2015. The said application came to be rejected by the Tribunal by its order dated 25.01.2016. The reason assigned by the Tribunal is that the applicant is married and therefore, ipso facto, not eligible to be considered as he is standing on his own and therefore not eligible for the extreme compassion granted by the Government for alleviating the immediate needs of the family under distress. Apparently, their family owns a residential house and has

4 agricultural land of 1.5 acres, and therefore, on a comparative merit also the application was not included in the list of indigence. Further the Tribunal has also given reasoning at paragraph No.2 of the order that under the rules relating to Hindu Law, a person can get married only when he is capable of looking after his family. Even otherwise also the bride’s family will not give daughter in marriage unless they are also sure that the bridegroom is capable of looking after the bride.

5 DoP&T’s Official Memorandum No.14014/02/2012-Estt.(D) dated 16.01.2013. In the circumstance, rejection of the petitioner’s case is contrary to the DoP&T’s Circular referred to above. Hence, the order of the Tribunal is bad in law and is liable to be set aside by allowing this petition.

6 6. After careful consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and after perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and also the endorsement issued by the respondents along with the application and other materials available on record, it is clear that the Government of India introduced scheme for compassionate appointment, the object of which is to grant appointment on compassionate grounds to a dependent family member of the government servant who dies, thereby leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood and to relieve family of the deceased government servant from financial destitution. Article 21 of the Constitution of India extends the helping hand to the persons who are eligible for compassionate appointment. On various grounds the appointment on compassionate grounds have been challenged before the Hon’ble High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is not the case of the respondents that absolutely there was no provision for the compassionate appointment. It is for the respondents to frame the rules for consideration of appointment on compassionate grounds. The

7 purpose of providing compassionate appointment to the family of the deceased i.e., to the wife, children and unmarried daughters is only to help the family get over the emergency. The reason given by the Tribunal while rejecting the original application is that the applicant is married and therefore, ipso facto, not eligible to be considered as he is standing on his own and therefore not eligible for the extreme compassion granted by the Government for alleviating the immediate needs of the family under distress. It is also observed that apparently, the family owns a residential house and has agricultural land of in an extent of 1.5 acres. The rejection of the Original Application by the Tribunal itself is not a ground to reject the application of the petitioner. If the respondents are of the opinion that the petitioner is well- enough and standing on his own, then the respondents should have secured the information from the family about the destitute position after the death of the bread earner. Moreover, rejection of the application based only on the ground that the petitioner is married and no family of the bride would be giving in daughter to an unemployed person is

8 a reason that cannot be accepted. The giving in of a bride in marriage to a person depends upon the circumstances and the family position of the bridegroom, which is not a point that will come in a way to consider the application made for appointment on compassionate ground. Providing compassionate appointment is only to alleviate the family in distress to get over the penury. The applicant has made the application for compassionate appointment well within the time. The respondents are duty-bound to reject the application only if it is found otherwise ineligible. In that view of the matter, the endorsement dated 09.01.2015 passed by the third respondent is bad in law and the same is quashed. Further, Order dated 25.01.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No.170/00835/2015 is also set aside. The petitioner is directed to make one more application to the respondents within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Further, the respondents are directed to consider the application so made by the petitioner in the light of the Office Memorandum dated 05.09.2015, at the earliest and in any

9 event of the matter within an outer limit of six months thereof. In terms of the above petition is allowed.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE Vnp*