LAWS(KAR)-2013-3-242

SRI. G.T. SURESHA Vs. SHIMOGA CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION

Decided On March 20, 2013
Sri. G.T. Suresha Appellant
V/S
Shimoga City Municipal Council And Directorate Of Municipal Administration Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 14.09.2010 - Annexure W passed by the respondents rejecting the claim of the petitions for appointment on compassionate grounds. One G. Thirupal was working as a Poura Karmika (Group - D) in the respondent No. 1 - City Municipal Council and he died on 01.07.2004 while in service. The deceased employee left behind his first wife Smt. Rothamma and through her three children and also a second wife by name Smt. Lakshmamma and through her two children. Petitioner is the son of the deceased employee through his second wife. On the question of drawing the death benefits of the deceased employee both the first wife and her children and second wife and her children landed before the Civil Court in P&SC No. 16/2005 under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act and the same ended in a compromise as under:

(2.) IN terms of the compromise decree the petitioner is entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. Accordingly the petitioner approached respondent No. 1 by making necessary application and the same came to be rejected under the impugned endorsement dated 14.09.2010 - Annexure W on the ground that under Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on compassionate grounds) Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules') the petitioner is not entitled for an appointment on compassionate grounds since he is the son of second wife of the deceased employee. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) A reading of sub -rule 2 of Rule 3 of the Rules specifies that the Rules do not make a distinction between the children of first wife and children of second wife. There is no specific bar under the Rules for providing an appointment to the son of second wife of deceased employee. In the absence of any such legal bar the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No. 1 is illegal and liable to be set aside.