Smt. Ashwathamma and Sri. V. Manjunatha vs The Managing Director and The Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

H. Billappa, J.—In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have called in question, the endorsement dated 4.6.2011 vide Annexure-K. By the impugned endorsement at Annexure-K, the petitioners have been informed that there is no direction in the writ petition or the order of the Labour Court regarding compassionate appointment and therefore, compassionate appointment cannot be given.

Aggrieved by that, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.

Briefly stated the facts are:

The husband of the first petitioner and the father of the second petitioner Sri. Venkataramappa was working as a Conductor in the respondent-Corporation. He died on 1.12.2007 while in service. In W.P. No. 7102/2007, this court has confirmed the order passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement. The father of the second petitioner has died while in service. The request of the petitioners for compassionate appointment has been rejected vide Annexure-K. Therefore, this writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned endorsement cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the request of the petitioners for compassionate appointment should have been considered in accordance with rules. Therefore, the impugned endorsement cannot be sustained.

As against this, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the husband of the first petitioner has died while in service and therefore, the request of the petitioners for compassionate appointment needs to be considered in accordance with the rules and subject to fulfillment of conditions prescribed in the rules.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the first petitioner''s husband has died while in service. The request of the petitioners for compassionate appointment should have been considered in accordance with rules. Instead of that, the request has been rejected on the ground that there is no direction in W.P. No. 7102/2007 or the order of the Labour Court which is not correct. As the first petitioner''s husband has died while in service, the request for compassionate appointment should have been considered in accordance with the rules. Therefore, the impugned endorsement cannot be sustained in law.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned endorsement at Annexure-K is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the request of the petitioners for compassionate appointment in accordance with the rules.