SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(SC) 237

R.BANUMATHI, A.S.BOPANNA, HRISHIKESH ROY
N. C. Santhosh – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :S.J. Amith, Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Shanthkumar V.Mahale, Pradeep Sawkar, Syed Faizan Ali, Rajesh Mahale, Advocates
For the Respondent:Shubhranshu Padhi, Ashish Yadav, Rakshit Jain, Vishal Banshal, V. N. Raghupathy, Manendra Pal Gupta, Advocates

Judgement Key Points

Question 1? What is the applicable norm to consider for compassionate appointment—those prevailing at the time of application or at the time of death of the government servant? Question 2? What is the scope and effect of Rule 5 amended provisions (1.04.1999) and Rule 9(3) for applications filed by minor dependants who had not attained majority within one year from death? Question 3? What are the rights of dependants seeking compassionate appointment when their applications were filed in contravention of amended Rules—are they eligible for consideration under transitional provisions?

- (!) The judgment holds that the norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, not the date of death, should govern compassionate appointment claims. (Paras discussing the basis for consideration) - (!) Amendment to Rule 5 (1.04.1999) introduced an outer time limit of one year from the date of death for minor dependants to apply; belated applications beyond this period are ineligible. (Background and analysis of Rule 5 amendments) - (!) Rule 9(3) is a transitional provision extending time for applications filed within certain windows, but it does not cover applications contravening amended Rule 5; such cases are not eligible under the transitional provision. (Discussion of Rule 9(3) and transitional applicability) - (!) Compassionate appointment is an exception to equal opportunity norms under Articles 14 and 16, and eligibility hinges on compliance with the amended Rules; appointments previously made dehors the Rules are liable to cancellation. (Legal principle and outcome) - (!) The conclusions affirm the Tribunal and High Court rulings that the appellants were ineligible for compassionate appointment when their applications were considered under the amended provisions. (Final holding) - (!) The judgment references related precedents clarifying whether norms applicable on death or consideration date should apply, aligning with the view that consideration-date norms prevail. (Contextual jurisprudence)

Question 1?

What is the applicable norm to consider for compassionate appointment—those prevailing at the time of application or at the time of death of the government servant?

Question 2?

What is the scope and effect of Rule 5 amended provisions (1.04.1999) and Rule 9(3) for applications filed by minor dependants who had not attained majority within one year from death?

Question 3?

What are the rights of dependants seeking compassionate appointment when their applications were filed in contravention of amended Rules—are they eligible for consideration under transitional provisions?


JUDGMENT :

Hrishikesh Roy. J.

Leave granted in SLP(C) No. 34878/2013 and SLP(C) No. 24169/2015

2. The appellants here were the beneficiary of compassionate appointments. But on the discovery that their appointments were made dehors the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 as amended w.e.f. 1.04.1999, (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"), those appointments came to be cancelled. The amendment to the proviso to Rule 5 stipulated that in case of a minor dependant of the deceased government employee, he/she must apply within one year from the date of death of the government servant and he must have attained the age of eighteen years on the day of making the application. Before amendment, the minor dependant was entitled to apply till one year of attaining majority.

3. When their service was terminated the aggrieved appointees approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"). But the Tribunal found that appellants were ineligible for appointment under the Rules and accor


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top