KABC010136172013

IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS

JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-8)

PRESENT

SRI SANTHOSHKUMAR SHETTY N., B.Com., LL.M.

XI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.

DATED THIS THE 5 th DAY OF APRIL, 2023

O.S.No.4510/2013

Plaintiffs: 1. Smt.Nagarathna,
W/o.late D.P.Ganeshappa
Aged about 51 years.

2. Sri.D.P.Channaveera,
S/o.D.P.Ganeshappa,
Aged about 24 years.

3. Kum.D.P.Sumalatha,
D/o. late D.P.Ganeshappa,
Aged about 21 years.

All are residing at No.20/2,

11th Cross, 1st Main,
Near Rajarajeshwari School,
Yeswanthapura, Bengaluru - 22

(By Adv. Sri.M.N.Madhusudhan)

 2 O.S.No.4510/2013

Vs.

Defendants: 1. The Managing Director,

Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd.,
No.83, “Shakthi Bhavan”,
Race Course Road,
Bangalore – 560 001.

2. Smt.Amrutha Kumari,
W/o.late D.P.Ganeshappa,
Major, age not known.

3. Sri.D.G.Kiran Kumar,
S/o.late D.P.Ganeshappa,
Aged about 37 years,

Both 2nd and 3rd defendants are

Residing at C/o. H.Veerappa,
Near Old Vegetable Market,
H.Siddaiah Road, Shimoga.

4. Smt. Kavitha,
W/o. E.Renuka,
D/o. late D.P.Ganeshappa,
Major, age not known
R/at Holehonnuru Village & Post
Bhadravathi Taluk,
Shimoga District.

(D1 by Adv. Sri.Ajay J.N.

D2 to D4 by Adv. Sri.S.V.Prakash)

Date of institution of the suit : 24.06.2013

Nature of the suit : Declaration & Injunction
Date of commencement of : 04.04.2017
Recording of the evidence
 3 O.S.No.4510/2013

Date on which the Judgment : 05.04.2023

was pronounced
Total Duration : Years Months Days
09 09 11

XI ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,

BENGALURU CITY.

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs for the relief of declaration

that, they are the legal heirs of deceased Ganeshappa and entitled
for his service benefits, in accordance with the Registered Will
dated 04.09.2008 and to direct the defendant No.1 to disburse the
service benefits in their favour and to provide job to plaintiff No.2
on compassionate ground and for such other reliefs.

2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiffs is that, the

plaintiff No.1 is the legally wedded wife of D.P.Ganeshappa and
plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are his children. The defendant No.2 claimed
to be the wife of deceased D.P.Ganeshappa and defendants No.3
and 4 are the children of defendant No.2. D.P.Ganeshappa was
working as A.G.M. (H.R.D.) in the Office of the Karnataka Power
Corporation, Hosangadi, Kundapura Taluk. When he was in
service, he died on 09.09.2008 at Kasturba Hospital, Manipal,
leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendants No.2 to 4. The
plaintiffs have no knowledge about the marriage of deceased
 4 O.S.No.4510/2013

D.P.Ganeshappa with defendant No.2 and he was living with the

plaintiffs till his death. After his death, the plaintiffs approached the
defendant No.1 for disbursement of death benefits. By that time,
the plaintiffs have received notice from the Court of Senior Civil
Judge at Kundapura in P & SC.No.1/2009 filed by defendant No.2
and others. When the matter was posted for enquiry, on
01.10.2011, the defendants No.2 to 4 withdrew the said petition on
the ground that, the original suit in O.S.No.215/2011 is pending on
the file of Civil Judge Court at Honnali. On verification, the
plaintiffs came to know that, defendant No.3 filed the said suit
against the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 and others for the relief of partition
and separate possession in respect of immovable properties and
said suit is pending for consideration. When D.P.Ganeshappa was
alive, the plaintiffs have taken care of him. Now the plaintiffs have
no avocation for their livelihood and they are depending upon the
service benefits of D.P.Ganeshappa. The plaintiff No.1 is working
in Garments Factory and plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are studying. The
plaintiff No.2 is entitled for employment on compassionate ground
since his father died when he was in service. In the Service
Records of D.P.Ganeshappa, name of the plaintiffs have been
mentioned. The plaintiff No.2 is having a Diploma Degree in
Mechanical Engineering, he is qualified for employment. But the
defendant No.1 is postponing to disburse the death benefits.
Hence left with no alternative, the plaintiffs issued a legal notice to
defendant No.1 on 12.12.2012. The defendant No.1 sent an
untenable reply. On 04.09.2008, deceased D.P.Ganeshappa
 5 O.S.No.4510/2013

executed a Registered Will in respect of his movable and

immovable properties, including his death benefits. Since the
defendant No.1 is postponing to disburse the death benefits, they
were constructed to file this suit.

3. In response to the suit summons, the defendant No.1

appeared through its Standing Counsel and filed the written
statement and admitted that, deceased D.P.Ganeshappa was
working under defendant No.1. His legal heirs are entitled for
service benefits. There are other proceedings initiated by the
defendants No.2 to 4 before the Senior Civil Judge, Kundapura
against defendant No.1 and Life Insurance Corporation of India.
Therefore, present suit is to be stayed under Section 10 of the
Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant No.1 undertook to abide
by the order passed by this court in so far as granting service
benefits, such as Provident Fund, Gratuity and other benefits. In
so far as, the Life Insurance Corporation of India amount is
concerned, it is for the Life Insurance Corporation of India to
decide. The only service benefits to which any employee of
defendant No.1 is entitled to is the Family Pension and DCRG.
There is a specific clause (Clause 6.1(d)) to the defendant No.1,
where an employee has two wives, the family pension shall be
divided between two wives equally. In so far as, compassionate
employment, it is depend on the Service Rules of defendant No.1.
The Service Rules of defendant No.1 states that, a dependent can
be given compassionate employment in the event of fulfillment of
certain conditions. If this court finds that, both are the legally
 6 O.S.No.4510/2013

wedded wives of D.P.Ganeshappa, it will not possible to grant job

for both their dependents, under the Rules. Clause 6 provides that,
ex-gratia amount can be granted in such an event and same can
be divided equally between the plaintiffs and defendants No.2 to 4.
In the light of this situation, the relief of direction to the defendant
No.1 to provide employment to the legal heir on compassionate
ground ought to be rejected. The grant of compassionate
employment is the discretion of defendant No.1 as per Service
Rules. Further more, the plaintiffs must be found eligible to apply
for compassionate employment and there is no legal or contractual
right in favour of the plaintiffs to seek compassionate employment.
The granting of such a relief would be in violation of Section 14 of
the Specific Relief Act as it amounts to seeking enforcement of a
covenant of personal service. All other averments in the plaint
pertains to inter-se lis between the plaintiffs and defendants No.2
to 4, the defendant No.1 neither denied or admitted the averments
made in paras No.1 to 13 of the plaint. Hence amongst other
grounds, defendant No.1 pray the court to pass necessary orders.

4. The defendants No.2 to 4 appeared through their counsel.

The defendant No.3 filed his written statement and same was
adopted by defendants No.2 and 4. The sum and substance of
written statement filed by defendant No.3 is that, the reliefs claimed
in this suit are directly in issue before the Court of Civil Judge &
JMFC., Honnali in O.S.No.215/2011. Therefore, in view of pendency
of the said suit, which is earlier in point of time, this suit is not
maintainable. The plaintiffs have suppressed the true facts and they
 7 O.S.No.4510/2013

are guilty of the suppression of facts. They are not entitled to invoke
equitable jurisdiction of this court. The plaintiff No.1 is the legally
wedded wife of D.P.Ganeshappa and plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are the
children born to them are stoutly denied. The defendant No.2 is the
first wife of D.P.Ganeshappa and defendants No.3 and 4 are his
children born to her are admitted as true and correct. The
D.P.Ganeshappa was working as Assistant General Manager
(H.R.D.) in the Office of Karnataka Power Corporation, Hosangadi,
Kundapura Taluk. All his terminal benefits have to be settled by the
defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 to 4. The plaintiffs are
not entitled for the service benefits, as the defendant No.2 is the
legally wedded wife of deceased D.P.Ganeshappa and defendants
No.3 and 4 are born to defendant No.2 and D.P.Ganeshappa.
Deceased D.P.Ganeshappa deserted defendants No.2 to 4 and it
appears that, later on he started to co-habit with plaintiff No.1 and
they might have got two children i.e., plaintiffs No.2 and 3. But there
was no marriage between deceased D.P.Ganeshappa and plaintiff
No.1, at any point of time. There was no divorce between deceased
D.P.Ganeshappa and defendant No.2. Even if, deceased
D.P.Ganeshappa married plaintiff No.1, during the subsistence of
first marriage, the second marriage is void-ab-initio and the children
born in the void marriage are illegitimate children and they do not
have any right to seek share in the service benefits of
D.P.Ganeshappa. All other movable and immovable properties
possessed by D.P.Ganeshappa are the ancestral properties. Hence,
the defendants No.2 to 4 are entitled for those properties. The
 8 O.S.No.4510/2013

plaintiffs being the second wife and illegitimate children, do not have
any right on those properties. Deceased D.P.Ganeshappa was
suffering from serious health problem and he was under continuous
treatment. He lost thinking capacity. At the time of execution of
alleged Will, he was not in a sound disposing state of mind. He
never executed any Will in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs got
created the Will in order to defeat the rights of the defendants No.2
to 4. The defendants No.2 to 4 having come to know about the claim
of the plaintiffs, filed a petition in P & SC.No.1/2009 on the file of
Senior Civil Judge, Kundapura and in the mean time, the defendant
No.3 instituted a suit in O.S.No.215/2011 on the file of Civil Judge,
Honnali for the relief of declaration that, alleged Will dated
04.09.2008, registered on 08.09.2008 before the Sub-Registrar,
Udupi is null and void and not binding on him and for the relief of
partition and separate possession, claiming 1/5th share in the suit
schedule property. The plaintiffs herein appeared in the said suit and
plaintiff No.2 herein has filed his written statement on 21.05.2012. In
the mean time, the defendant No.3 having noticed that the claim
was not made in respect of death-cum-retirement benefits and other
movable properties of deceased D.P.Ganeshappa. Hence he sought
for amendment of plaint including other properties in the said suit.
The said issues have been seized of by the Court of Civil Judge &
JMFC., Honnali in O.S.No.215/2011. Therefore, this suit is liable to
be dismissed or stayed until disposal of O.S.No.215/2011. Both the
suits cannot go simultaneously as there is possibility of conflicting
decisions. Assuming but not conceding that, there was marriage
 9 O.S.No.4510/2013

between plaintiff No.1 and D.P.Ganeshappa, it is void as the marital

knot between deceased D.P.Ganeshappa and defendant No.2 was
subsisting. As such, none of the plaintiffs are entitled to any relief as
prayed for. Hence, amongst other grounds prayed for dismissal of
the suit.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, my

predecessor-in-office has framed the following issues for
determination:-

ISSUES

1. Whether plaintiffs prove that 1st plaintiff is the legally

wedded wife of late D.P.Ganeshappa?

2. Whether plaintiffs further prove that 2nd and 3rd

plaintiff are the children of late D.P.Ganeshappa?

3. Whether suit filed by plaintiffs is maintainable in

view of the pendency of suit in O.S.No.215/2011
before the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC,
Honnalli?

4. Whether defendants 2 to 4 prove that there is no

cause of action for the suit?

5. What decree or order?

6. After settlement of issues, the plaintiff No.1 alone has

entered into the witness box as PW-1 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 were
marked through her and closed their side. On behalf of the
defendants No.2 to 4, the defendant No.3 has entered into the
witness box as DW-1 and Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.8 were marked through
 10 O.S.No.4510/2013

him and closed their side. On behalf of defendant No.1, a witness

by name Sri.Manjunatha I.S., serving as Personnel Officer was
examined as DW-2 and Ex.D.9 to D13 were marked through him
and closed its side.

7. The learned counsel for plaintiffs submitted his written

arguments and heard the arguments of learned counsel for
defendants No.1 to 4.

8. My findings on the above issues are as under:-

Issue No.1: In the negative.
Issue No.2: In the affirmative.
Issue No.3: Doesn't survive for consideration.
Issue No.4: Doesn't survive for consideration.
Issue No.5: As per final order below
for the following:

REASONS

9. Issues No.1 to 4:- Since all these issues are

interconnected, taken up together for discussion to avoid
repetition. Before looking to the points in controversy, first of all, it
is necessary to notice some of the undisputed facts. Late
D.P.Ganeshappa S/o.D.P.Halappa was working as Assistant
General Manager (H.R.D.) in the Office of Karnataka Power
Corporation, Hosangadi, Kundapura Taluk. Due to ill health, he
was admitted to Kasturba Hospital, Manipal and he died in the
hospital on 09.09.2008. As the said D.P.Ganeshappa died in the
course of his employment, the defendant No.1 being his Employer
is liable to disburse the service benefits of deceased
 11 O.S.No.4510/2013

D.P.Ganeshappa in favour of his Class-I heirs. Further, as per

Service Rules of defendant No.1, one of the family members of
deceased D.P.Ganeshappa is entitled to claim job under
compassionate ground.

10. The plaintiffs No.1 to 3 being the second wife and

children of D.P.Ganeshappa, instituted this suit contending that,
during his life time said D.P.Ganeshappa executed a Registered
Will, bequeathed all his movable and immovable properties in
their favour. By virtue of the testamentary succession, the plaintiffs
are entitled for service and terminal benefits of deceased
D.P.Ganeshappa. Further, plaintiff No.2 being a Diploma Holder in
Mechanical Engineering, he alone is eligible and entitled to get job
under compassionate ground and thereby sought certain reliefs. It
is also not in dispute that, the defendant No.2 is the first wife of
deceased D.P.Ganeshappa. But plaintiff No.1 has contended that,
when she contract marriage with D.P.Ganeshappa, she was not
aware about his marriage with defendant No.2. Further, the
plaintiffs were not aware about defendants No.3 and 4. As such,
on the strength of the Registered Will, the plaintiffs alone are
entitled for service benefits and other benefits of D.P.Ganeshappa.

11. In his oral evidence, PW-1 has reiterated the averments

made in the plaint. The documents marked on behalf of plaintiffs
at Ex.P.1 is the Death Report issued by Kasturba Hospital,
Manipal. Ex.P.2 is the Death Certificate of Ganeshappa D.P.
Ex.P.3 is the certified copy of the Order Sheet in P &
 12 O.S.No.4510/2013

SC.No.1/2009 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kundapura. Ex.P.4

is the certified copy of Memo of Withdrawal filed in P &
SC.No.1/2009. Ex.P.5 is the office copy of the Legal Notice dated
12.12.2012, issued to defendant No.1. Ex.P.6 is the Reply issued
by defendant No.1. Ex.P.7 is the Registered Will dated
04.09.2008. Ex.P.8 is the Family Genealogical Tree of plaintiffs
and deceased D.P.Ganeshappa, issued by Village Accountant,
Hamsabavi.

12. Per contra, the case of defendant No.1 is that, it is ready

to abide the orders of this court with respect to disbursement of
service and terminal benefits of deceased D.P.Ganeshappa. The
foremost contention taken by defendant No.1 is that, neither the
plaintiffs nor defendants No.2 to 4 claim employment on
compassionate ground as a matter of right. It is subject to their
Service Rules.

13. In his oral evidence, DW-2 has reiterated the contention

taken by the defendant No.1, in the the written statement. The
documents marked on behalf of defendant No.1 at Ex.D.9 is the
Letter of Authorisation. Ex.D.10 is the certified copy of KPCL
Employees Family Pension Scheme. Ex.D.11 is the certified copy
of Rules framed by them regarding employment under
compassionate ground. Ex.D.12 is the certified copy of Calculation
Chart with regard to Family Pension and DCRG benefits of
deceased D.P.Ganeshappa. Ex.D.13 is the certified copy of
 13 O.S.No.4510/2013

Nomination Form submitted by deceased D.P.Ganeshappa to his

Employer.

14. As stated supra, the contention of defendants No.2 to 4

is that, the defendant No.2 is the first wife of deceased
D.P.Ganeshappa and defendants No.3 and 4 were born to them in
the said wedlock. The defendants No.2 to 4 alone are entitled for
all movable and immovable properties of deceased
D.P.Ganeshappa. Since plaintiff No.1 married deceased
D.P.Ganeshappa, during the subsistence of his first marriage, her
marriage with D.P.Ganeshappa is void-ab-initio. As such, neither
plaintiff No.1 nor other plaintiffs are entitled for any relief as
prayed for.

15. In his oral evidence, DW-1 has reiterated the averments

made in their written statement. The documents marked on behalf
of the defendants No.2 to 4 at Ex.D.1 is the certified copy of Order
Sheet in O.S.No.32/2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC,
Harihar. Ex.D.2 is the certified copy of Plaint in the said suit.
Ex.D.3 is the certified copy of Plaint in O.S.No.215/2011, on the
file of Civil Judge & JMFC, Honnali. Ex.D.4 is the certified copy of
the Written Statement filed by plaintiff No.2 herein in
O.S.No.32/2015. Ex.D.5 is the certified copy of Written Statement
in the form of counter claim filed by defendant No.3 in the said
suit. Ex.D.6 is the certified copy of Written Statement filed by
plaintiff No.1 herein in O.S.No.32/2015. Ex.D.7 and D.8 are the
 14 O.S.No.4510/2013

Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.32/2015 on the file of Senior

Civil Judge & JMFC., Harihara.

16. In this suit, the plaintiffs sought for the relief of

declaration that, by virtue of testamentary succession, they alone
are entitled for service benefits of deceased D.P.Ganeshappa and
defendants No.2 to 4 are not entitled for any amount in his service
benefits. Further, they sought for direction to defendant No.1 to
provide job to plaintiff No.2 on compassionate ground. But on
perusal of the certified copy of Judgment and Decree, marked at
Ex.D.7 and D.8, it is clear that, the defendant No.3 herein
instituted the suit in O.S.No.215/2011 for the relief of partition on
the file of Civil Judge & JMFC., Honnali in respect of immovable
properties of deceased D.P.Ganeshappa. Later on, the said suit
was transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC.,
Harihara and renumbered as O.S.No.32/2015. During the
pendency of the said suit, the defendant No.3 herein got amended
the plaint and thereby sought the relief of partition in respect of
service benefits of deceased D.P.Ganeshappa.

17. On perusal of the Judgment, marked at Ex.D.7, it is

further clear that, though the plaintiffs herein appeared in the said
suit through their Advocate and filed their written statements, not
chosen to cross-examine the plaintiff therein. Further, they did not
take any trouble to adduce evidence on their own. Ultimately, the
said court going through the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Vidhyadhar Vs. Manikrao
 15 O.S.No.4510/2013

another, reported in AIR 1999 SC 1441 took adverse inference

against the plaintiff herein. However, on the available evidence
and pleadings, said court has held that, the plaintiff No.1 herein
being the second wife of deceased D.P.Ganeshappa, is not
entitled for any share either in the movable or immovable
properties of deceased D.P.Ganeshappa. But the plaintiffs No.2
and 3 and defendants No.2 to 4 are entitled for 1/5 th share each in
all the movable and immovable properties of deceased
D.P.Ganeshappa and said judgment came to be passed on
19.11.2021.

18. Now it is clear that, except seeking an employment

under compassionate ground, the other reliefs claimed in this suit
were also the subject matter in the said suit and said court already
gave its findings holding that, the plaintiffs No.2 and 3 and
defendants No.2 to 4 are entitled for equal share. But none of the
parties made any attempt to stay the proceedings on the file of the
said court or the present suit. Ultimately, the aforesaid suit came
to be decreed and judgment and decree passed therein has
reached finality. Since the plaintiffs were the defendants in the
said suit, the judgment and decree passed therein is binding on
them.

19. Even though, the plaintiffs appeared in the said suit and
filed their written statement, for the reasons best known to them,
did not take any trouble to cross-examine the plaintiff therein and
to adduce evidence on their behalf. The Will relied by the plaintiffs
 16 O.S.No.4510/2013

was not produced in the said suit. Though the Will is produced in
this suit and marked as Ex.P.7, the plaintiffs did not take any
trouble to prove the Will as required under Section 68 of the
Indian Evidence Act. Though there is a presumptive value about
the registered document, it is mandatory on the part of the
plaintiffs to examine any one of the attesting witnesses to prove
the said Will. As such, Will is not proved in accordance with law.
Above all, since already a finding about the disbursement of death
benefits of deceased D.P.Ganeshappa, the plaintiffs cannot re-
agitate their claim once again in this suit.

20. In his written argument, the learned counsel for plaintiffs

placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Rameshwari Devi Vs. State of Bihar and others,
reported in (2000) 2 SCC 431 has vehemently argued that, the
plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are the children of deceased
D.P.Ganeshappa from his second wife. As per Section 16 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, the plaintiffs No.2 and 3 being the children of
deceased D.P.Ganeshappa are entitled for equal share with the
defendants No.2 to 4. In paras No.9, 13 to 15 of the aforesaid
decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“Family Pension – Entitlement to – Children of second

marriage – Deceased employee, a Hindu, contracting
second marriage during subsistence of his first
marriage – Children born out of second marriage,
according to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, were
legitimate though the marriage itself was void – High
Court therefore holding that the minor children of
second marriage were entitled to family pension but not
 17 O.S.No.4510/2013

the second widow – Decision of the High Court upheld

– Plea raised that second marriage was in violation of
conduct rules applicable to deceased employee – Held,
no disciplinary action was taken against him during his
life time and therefore this could not be a ground for
denying family pension to rightful claimants – Further
held, disbursement of family pension cannot be
deferred till a civil court pronounces upon rights of
respective parties – Government can itself hold a
proper and bona fide inquiry for determining entitlement
of rival claimants to family pension – Doors of civil
courts are always open to any party after and even
before a decision is reached by the Government as to
who is entitled to pensionary benefits – Inquiry got
conducted by State Government in the present case,
held, was not a sham – It was amply established on the
basis of oral and documentary evidence that the
deceased employee and the second spouse were living
as husband and wife – Cohabitation for a long period
gives rise to a strong presumption of wedlock – It was
therefore not necessary for the State Government to
require the second spouse to prove her marriage in
court of law, insofar as entitlement to family pension
was concerned.”

21. As stated supra, the competent court of law already gave

its findings holding that, the plaintiffs No.2 and 3 and defendants
No.2 to 4 are entitled for equal share in all movables and
immovables of deceased D.P.Ganeshappa and findings given
therein has reached finality. That apart, the Will relied by the
plaintiffs has not been proved in accordance with law. As such, the
plaintiff No.1 is not entitled for any share in the service benefits of
deceased D.P.Ganeshappa as per judgment and decree passed
in O.S.No.32/2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC.,
Harihara. This being the factual position, Issue No.1 is answered
 18 O.S.No.4510/2013

in the negative, Issue No.2 in the affirmative and Issues No.3 and
4 does not survive for consideration.

22. Issue No.5:- The other relief claimed by the plaintiffs is

that, the plaintiff No.2 being a Diploma Holder in Mechanical
Engineering is entitled for job under compassionate ground. Per
contra, the defendants No.2 to 4, more particularly defendant No.3
has taken contention that, when he was having eligibility to get an
employment under compassionate ground, the plaintiffs did not
allow him to get the job. As such, the plaintiff No.2 being a son
born to the second wife of deceased D.P.Ganeshappa, is not
entitled for job under compassionate ground. However, the
defence set up by defendants No.1 is more specific and definite. It
is their contention that, job under compassionate ground cannot
be claimed as a matter of right. To get an employment under
compassionate ground, the near relative of the deceased is
required to fulfill the other conditions stipulated in their Service
Rules. That apart, as per Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act,
such relief cannot be granted in a suit like this.

23. In this background of the matter, I have carefully gone

through the terms and conditions employed in the Service Rules
with respect to employment under compassionate ground, marked
at Ex.D.11. For better appreciation, it is just and proper to
reproduce the certain terms and conditions incorporated in the
said Rules. Same is read as under:
 19 O.S.No.4510/2013

“With a view to providing relief to the family members of

the deceased employees, a Scheme of providing
employment to one of the dependents was introduced
in the Corporation during 1978. It was intended to
support one of the surviving members of the family who
were in great distress and misery on account of death
of the breadwinner. This Scheme was similar to the
Scheme introduced in Government of Karnataka.

One of the following dependents of the deceased

employee will only be eligible in the order of preference
for claiming the benefits under 2(a) above:
i. Wife of deceased employee.
ii. A son of the deceased employee (if there is no widow
eligible for assistance or if she is not willing to accept
the assistance for any reason).
iii. An unmarried daughter (if there is no widow or son
eligible or willing to accept the assistance)
iv. A widowed daughter (if there is no widow or son
eligible for assistance or not willing to accept the
assistance) who is not in receipt of any monthly regular
income or not having any property which fetches
substantial regular income.”

24. As rightly contended by defendant No.1, to seek an

employment under compassionate ground, the eligible candidate is
required to fulfill the other obligations. Looking to the contentions
taken by the plaintiffs and defence set up by the defendants No.2 to
4, it is clear that, now the plaintiff No.2 is aged about 34 years. But
the defendant No.3 has crossed age limit to get an employment
under compassionate ground. As contended by the defendants, it is
equally true that, this court being a civil court cannot direct
defendant No.1 to provide employment to plaintiff No.2 under
compassionate ground. However, plaintiff No.2 is not debarred from
 20 O.S.No.4510/2013

agitating his claim to get the employment under compassionate

ground. With these observations, this court proceed to pass the
following:-
ORDER

Suit of the plaintiffs is partly decreed as under:

By virtue of the judgment and decree passed in

O.S.No.32/2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC,
Harihara, the plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are entitled for 1/5 th share each
in the service benefits of deceased D.P.Ganeshappa.

The plaintiff No.2 is at liberty to agitate his claim for

employment under compassionate ground in the Office of
defendant No.1.

No order as to cost.

Draw decree accordingly.

(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, typed by her, the transcript

thereof corrected and then pronounced by me, in the open court,
on this the 5th day of April, 2023)

(SANTHOSHKUMAR SHETTY N.)

XI ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY.
 21 O.S.No.4510/2013

ANNEXURE

List of witnesses examined for plaintiffs:

PW.1 : Smt.Nagarathana

List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:

Ex.P.1 : Death Report issued by Kasturba

Hospital, Manipal
Ex.P.2 : Death Certificate of Ganeshappa D.P.
Ex.P.3 : Certified copy of Order Sheet in
P & SC.1/2009
Ex.P.4 : Certified copy of Memo in P & SC.1/2009
Ex.P.5 : Certified copy of Legal Notice
dated 12.12.2012
Ex.P.6 : Reply Notice dated 15.01.2013
Ex.P.7 : Registered Will dated 04.09.2008
Ex.P.8 : Genealogical Tree

List of witnesses examined for defendants :

DW.1 : Sri.D.G.Kiran Kumar

DW.2 : Sri.Manjunatha I.S.

List of documents exhibited for defendants :

Ex.D.1 : Certified copy of Order Sheet in

O.S.No.32/2015
Ex.D.2 : Certified copy of Amended Plaint in
O.S.No.32/2015
Ex.D.3 : Certified copy of Plaint in
O.S.No.32/2015
Ex.D.4 : Certified copy of Written Statement of
Defendant No.1 in O.S.No.32/2015
Ex.D.5 : Certified copy of Written Statement of
Defendant No.3 in O.S.No.32/2015
Ex.D.6 : Certified copy of Written Statement of
Defendant No.5 in O.S.No.32/2015
 22 O.S.No.4510/2013

Ex.D.7 & 8 : Certified copy of Judgment & Decree

in O.S.No.32/2015
Ex.D.9 : Letter of Authorisation
Ex.D.10 : Certified copy of Employees' Family
Pension Scheme
Ex.D.11 : Certified copy of Terms & Conditions
regarding appointment under
compassionate ground
Ex.D.12 : Certified copy of approximate calculation
with regard to death benefits of
D.P.Ganeshappa
Ex.D.13 : Certified copy of Nomination Form

XI ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE

BENGALURU CITY.