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 before the High Court of Karnataka challenging the order dated 28.06.2017 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application No.1440/2012. The Tribunal had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner's father seeking to set aside the order dated 31.01.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services. The father had originally filed the application on 16.02.2012 seeking compassionate appointment. The High Court noted that the petitioner's father died in harness on 31.01.2000, and the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment only in 2012, after a delay of 12 years. The court observed that the very purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis. The court held that such a claim cannot be entertained after a long lapse of time as it would defeat the object of the scheme. The court further noted that the Tribunal had rightly dismissed the application on the ground of delay and laches. The High Court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it, upholding the Tribunal's order.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Delay and Laches - The petitioner sought compassionate appointment after 12 years of his father's death - The Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground of delay and laches - The High Court held that the claim for compassionate appointment cannot be entertained after such a long delay as the purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family in distress - Held that the Tribunal's order was justified and no interference was called for (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal was justified in dismissing the application for compassionate appointment on the ground of delay and laches.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dated 28.06.2017 in Application No.1440/2012.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment
- laches and delay
- limitation
- service law
- writ jurisdiction
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (01) 97
W.P.No.202056/2018 (S-KAT)
Sri.G.G.Chagashetti, Sri.K.M.Ghate
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 to quash the order dated 28.06.2017 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application No.1440/2012 and to allow the application for compassionate appointment.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's father died in harness on 31.01.2000, and the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in 2012, which was rejected by the Commissioner of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services on 31.01.2012. The Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground of delay and laches.
Previous Decisions
The Commissioner of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services passed an order dated 31.01.2012 rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment. The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dismissed the application No.1440/2012 on 28.06.2017.
Issues
Whether the claim for compassionate appointment after 12 years of the death of the employee is maintainable.
Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the application on the ground of delay and laches.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the application on the ground of delay and laches.
Respondents contended that the claim was highly belated and the purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief, which cannot be granted after such a long delay.
Ratio Decidendi
Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment and is intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of the deceased employee. A claim for compassionate appointment after a long delay of 12 years defeats the very purpose of the scheme and cannot be entertained.
Judgment Excerpts
The very purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis.
Such a claim cannot be entertained after a long lapse of time as it would defeat the object of the scheme.
Procedural History
The petitioner's father died on 31.01.2000. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in 2012. The Commissioner of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services rejected the claim on 31.01.2012. The petitioner's father filed an application before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal on 16.02.2012, which was dismissed on 28.06.2017. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
