Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri K. Mohan Kumar, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash an endorsement dated 16.09.2014 issued by the 2nd respondent (Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Chickmagalur Division) and to direct the respondents to consider his case for appointment on compassionate grounds in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC). The petitioner's father, Sri Kariappa, who was a Junior Assistant in KSRTC, died on 27.09.2013 while in service. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, but the request was rejected via the impugned endorsement. The petitioner contended that as on the date of his father's death, the salary income of his mother was less than what his father was earning, and therefore the respondents were unjustified in rejecting his request. He argued that the salary of his father in September 2013 was Rs. 27,768/- and his mother's salary was less than that, and due to the untimely death of the bread-earner, the family was facing financial crisis. The respondents, represented by Smt. H.R. Renuka, opposed the petition. The court examined the scheme for compassionate appointment and noted that the mother of the petitioner was employed as a Government Teacher and was earning a salary of Rs. 30,000/- per month. The court held that the scheme for compassionate appointment is not a mode of succession but a means to provide immediate financial relief to the bereaved family to tide over the sudden financial crisis. Since the family had a steady income from the mother's employment, the family could not be considered to be in indigent circumstances. The court found no arbitrariness or illegality in the impugned endorsement and dismissed the petition.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Scheme Interpretation - KSRTC Compassionate Appointment Scheme - The court considered whether the petitioner was entitled to compassionate appointment after his father's death in service, given that his mother was employed as a government teacher. The court held that the scheme is intended to provide immediate financial relief to families in indigent circumstances, and where the family has a steady income from another government employee, the claim cannot be entertained. The court dismissed the petition, finding no arbitrariness in the respondent's decision. (Paras 1-6) B) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Financial Indigence - KSRTC Compassionate Appointment Scheme - The court examined the requirement of financial indigence for compassionate appointment. It held that the mother's employment as a government teacher with a salary of Rs. 30,000/- per month meant the family was not in indigent circumstances, and thus the rejection of the petitioner's application was justified. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment under the KSRTC scheme when his mother is employed as a government teacher and the family has a steady income.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment is not a vested right
- scheme must be strictly construed
- financial indigence is a prerequisite
- mother's employment as government teacher disqualifies claim
