D. V. SHYLENDRAKUMAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by the employer, Karnataka state road transport corporation ('appellant-corporation' for short) is directed against the order of the learned single judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent-worker ('respondent' for short) whereby the learned single judge has issued directions to the appellant to consider the case of the respondent or any member of his family for appointment in the appellant-corporation on compassionate grounds.

( 2 ) THE appellant, being aggrieved by such directions, has preferred this appeal contending that the learned single judge could not have issued any directions to the appellant to consider the case of the appellant or any of the members of the respondent's family for compassionate appointment inasmuch as the workman had not died while in service and no directions could be issued by the court to consider any case of compassionate appointment other than the one in conformity with the policy that was being followed by the appellant-corporation for such appointments.

( 3 ) THE brief facts leading to the above appeal are that the father of the respondent Sri krishnegowda was an employee with the appellant-corporation. The said employee was working as a security guard at the kolar bus depot of the appellant-corporation and while so, during the year 1988, by a representation dated 4-7-1988, the employee requested the corporation to immediately transfer him to any other place apprehending threat to his life at the place where he was working and also called upon the corporation to treat the said communication as a letter of resignation if transfer to any other place was not possible and accordingly settle his dues.

( 4 ) IT appears, acting on this, the appellant-corporation accepted the letter as a letter of resignation and as per the letter dated 1-9-1988 bearing No. Kst:klr:est:e 1:1859/88-89 intimated the workman accepting his offer as a letter of resignation and relieving him.

( 5 ) HOWEVER, it appears, the workman had second thought about his letter requesting to relieve him from his duties and had addressed a communication (representation) dated 19-9-1988 i. e. , subsequent to the acceptance of his resignation by the corporation, requesting the corporation to treat his earlier letter dated 4-7-1988 as withdrawn and to permit him to resume his work. In this view of the matter, the employee had requested the employer corporation to rescind their order No. 184 of 1988 intimating the employee about the acceptance of his resignation. The appellant-corporation having not altered its decision subsequent to the acceptance of the resignation of the respondent, the workman had also raised a dispute and the matter was sought to be conciliated before the labour and conciliation officer, kolar.

( 6 ) WHILE the matters stood at this stage, it appears, the employee suffered a setback in his health and ultimately died on 30-11-1999 during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings before the conciliation officer. Three to four years thereafter, the respondent, son of the deceased erstwhile employee of the appellant-corporation, gave a representation to the appellant-corporation, seeking for providing him an employment in the appellant-corporation on compassionate grounds. This request of the respondent was rejected by the appellant-corporation as per the endorsement dated 5-3-1992 (annexure-e to the writ petition) informing that as the respondent's father had resigned his post and the said resignation had been accepted as on 1-9-1988 itself, that it is not possible for the appellant-corporation to consider the respondent's request for compassionate appointment as it was outside the scheme of compassionate appointment governing the corporation. It is against this endorsement the respondent approached this court by filing the writ petition seeking for quashing of this endorsement dated 5-3-1992 and for further directions to the appellant-corporation to provide the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document