1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA

WRIT PETITION NO.45301/2013 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

RAJESH Y.,
S/O. YUVARAJA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/O HOUSE NO.G-7,
WORKMEN BLOCK JOG, SAGAR TALUK,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.V. PRAKASH, ADV.)

AND:

1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION

CORPORATION LIMITED,
CORPORATE OFFICE,
KAVERI BHAVAN,
BANGALORE-560 009,
REP. BY ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

EN, ONM-DIVISION,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD.,
BHADRAVATHI – 577 301.

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

(V) 400K.V. STATION,
THALAGOPPA, SAGAR TALUK,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT – 577 301.
...RESPONDENTS
 2

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER/ENDORSEMENT DATED 5.6.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-G
AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER & PROVIDE THE
EMPLOYMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS ON ACCOUNT OF
THE DEATH OF THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER LATE RAMAIAH
WHO DIED DURING THE EMPLOYEMENT PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE-F.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

One Ramaiah, son of Nagaiah, was employed as a

Lineman in the respondents Corporation. He had two

daughters and no male children. Petitioner who is the son

of a daughter of said Ramaiah, i.e., grand son of Ramaiah,

was taken by Ramaiah and his wife Smt.Achchamma in

adoption on 25.2.1999. Said Ramaiah having died while in

service on 6.9.2000, the petitioner, whose date of birth is

23.1.1987 and was 13 years of age at the time of death of

Ramaiah, having submitted a representation as at

Annexure-F seeking appointment on compassionate

ground and an endorsement dated 5.6.2013 as at

Annexure-G having been issued stating that there is no

 3

provision in the respondent Corporation to provide

appointment on compassionate ground, this writ petition

was filed to quash Annexure-G and to direct respondents 1

and 2, to provide employment on compassionate ground.

2. Sri S.V.Prakash, learned Advocate for the

petitioner contended that the petitioner having been validly

adopted vide Annexure-A, the respondents are unjustified

in not providing appointment and in issuing Annexure-G.

He submitted that there being arbitrariness on the part of

the respondents in the matter of consideration of the claim

of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate

ground, endorsement as at Annexure-G warrants

interference.

3. In Bandeppa Narayani Vs. Deputy Commissioner

ILR 2013 Karnataka 725, the petitioner had submitted an

application seeking appointment on compassionate ground

claiming that he having been adopted by the former

employee of the City Municipal Council, the rejection of the

claim on the ground that there is no provision for

 4

appointment of an adopted person, had approached the

Court for relief. Considering the rival contentions and the

record of the case and sub-rule (3) of R.3 of the Karnataka

Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate grounds)

Rules, 1996 (“Rules” for short), it has been held as

follows:

“16. Rule 3 of the Rules being relevant, the same reads

as follows:

“3. Eligibility for appointment:-(1) Appointment on

compassionate grounds under the rules shall not be
claimed as a matter of right and shall not be given as a
matter of course.
(2) x x x x x

(3) An adopted son or daughter of a deceased

Government servant shall not be eligible for
appointment under these rules.

In view of the said provision specifically making

‘an adopted son or daughter’ of deceased servant not
eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds
and also the enunciation of law by the Apex Court
and this Court, in the decisions noticed supra, and as
an expansive meaning cannot be given and the Rule
should be strictly interpreted, the decision taken by
the 1st respondent, vide Annexure-E and conveyed by
the 3rd respondent, vide Annexure-F, is neither
 5

arbitrary nor illegal. An adopted son having not been

included in the definition of Rule 2(1) (a) and (b) of the
Rules and in view of the ineligibility as per sub-rule (3)
of Rule 3, noticed supra, the rejection of the claim of
the petitioner for appointment on compassionate
ground is justified.”

The said decision squarely applies to the instant

case.

4. Even in the case of Sri John Foscol Lopies @ Johan

Junvav Dias Vs. Hubli Electricity Supply Co. Ltd.,

(HESCOM), Hubli and others, ILR 2013 Kar 547, this Court

has held as follows:

“KARNATAKA CIVIL SERVICES (APPOINTMENT ON

COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS) RULES, 1996 – Claim of adopted
son for compassionate appointment - Rejection of – Challenge to –
Circular issued by the authorities that the adopted son or
daughter of the deceased is not entitled for appointment on
compassionate grounds – Belated application – HELD, The prayer
of the petitioner cannot be considered in the light of the Circular
dated 2nd May, 1997 bearing No.KVM/B5/721/80-81, the adopted
son of the deceased employee is not entitled for appointment on
compassionate grounds and there is no scope to consider his
request; further the application is not filed within one year from
the date of death of the deceased adopted father of the petitioner
 6

in the year 1999. As per the terms and conditions of the Circular
dated 2nd May, 1997, the applicant seeking appointment on
compassionate grounds is required to file the application for the
same within one year from the date of death of the deceased
employee.-ON FACTS, FURTHER HELD, In the instant case, the
deceased employee died on 11th March, 1999 and the request for
appointment on compassionate grounds is made on 8th November,
2005, well over six years from the date of death of the deceased
employee. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the second
respondent for rejecting the request of the petitioner for
appointment on compassionate grounds and for issuing the
impugned order cum communication are just and proper.”

5. The petitioner though was adopted as per

Annexure-A, was the grand son of Ramaiah. Widow of

Ramiah has been granted pension out of the funds of

‘KPTCL and ESCOMS Pension and Gratuity Trust,

Bangalore’ which becomes evident from Annexure-C. The

petitioner has not attained majority within one year of

death of Ramaiah and was just about 13 years of age on

the date Ramaiah died. More than 12 years has elapsed

after the death of Ramaiah. There being no provision to

provide appointment to an adopted person in the Service

Regulations of the respondents, the endorsement as at

 7

Annexure-G, in view of the decisions noticed supra and

also the long intervening period cannot be termed as

either arbitrary or illegal.

In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the

writ petition. Same is rejected.

Sd/-
JUDGE

Ksj/-