Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mehboob, son of Syed Hussain, a 'D' Group employee in the Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dated 28.06.2017 dismissing his application for compassionate appointment. The petitioner's father died on 31.01.2012, and the petitioner's father had filed an application on 16.02.2012 before the Tribunal to set aside the order of the Commissioner of Animal Husbandry rejecting his claim. The Tribunal dismissed the application on merits. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and cannot be claimed after the scheme lapses. The court also noted the inordinate delay in approaching the court. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - No Vested Right - The petitioner claimed compassionate appointment after his father's death in 2012, but the scheme had lapsed and there was inordinate delay. The court held that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and cannot be claimed after the scheme ceases to exist. (Paras 2-6)
B) Service Law - Delay and Laches - Delay in Claiming Appointment - The petitioner's father died in 2012, but the petitioner approached the court only in 2018. The court held that such delay disentitles the petitioner to any relief. (Paras 5-6)
C) Service Law - Lapse of Scheme - Effect on Pending Applications - The compassionate appointment scheme under which the claim was made had lapsed. The court held that no appointment can be made under a lapsed scheme. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment on the ground of his father's death in harness, despite the lapse of the scheme and delay in making the claim.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dated 28.06.2017 in Application No.1440/2012 is upheld.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment is not a vested right
- delay in claiming appointment
- scheme lapsed
- no automatic entitlement
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (01) 47
W.P.No.202056/2018 (S-KAT)
Sri.G.G.Chagashetti (for petitioner), Sri.K.M.Ghate, AGA (for respondents)
The State of Karnataka, The Commissioner of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services Department, The Deputy Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services Department, The Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services Department
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dismissing the application for compassionate appointment.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the Tribunal's order dated 28.06.2017 and to allow the application for compassionate appointment.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's father, a government employee, died in harness, and the petitioner claimed compassionate appointment, which was rejected by the Commissioner and later by the Tribunal.
Previous Decisions
The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dismissed Application No.1440/2012 on 28.06.2017.
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment after the lapse of the scheme?
Whether the delay in filing the claim disentitles the petitioner to relief?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he is entitled to compassionate appointment as his father died in harness.
Respondents argued that the scheme has lapsed and there is inordinate delay in claiming the appointment.
Ratio Decidendi
Compassionate appointment is not a vested right and cannot be claimed after the scheme under which it was sought has lapsed. Delay in approaching the court also disentitles the petitioner to relief.
Judgment Excerpts
The present petitioner who is the son of Syed Hussain, ‘D’ Group employee, Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, Tikota, Vijayapur District is before this court against the order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore dated 28.06.2017 made in Application No.1440/2012, dismissing the application on merits.
The petitioner’s father Syed Hussain filed an application on 16.02.2012 before the Tribunal to set aside the order dated 31.01.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services Department.
Procedural History
The petitioner's father filed Application No.1440/2012 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal on 16.02.2012 challenging the order dated 31.01.2012. The Tribunal dismissed the application on 28.06.2017. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition on an unspecified date, which was heard and dismissed on 02.01.2019.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
