DATED

29.07.2021

IN

APPLICATION

NO.10558/2020 PASSED BY KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE

TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI VIDE ANNEXURE-E.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,

KRISHNA S.DIXIT, J MADE THE FOLLOWING:

- 3 -

ORDER

Petitioners are knocking at the doors of Writ Court

assailing the order dated 29.07.2021 rendered by the

Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Belagavi whereby

relief has been granted to Smt. Syeda Huseena Begum, by

favouring her Application No.10558/2020.

The operative portion of the impugned Order of

the Tribunal reads as under:

<(i)

The application is partly allowed.

(ii) Endorsement/letter bearing No.¥À.¸ÀA:E1/¥Áæ±Á²/JZï.J¸ï.ªÀÄ/

¦.ªÀÄA.PÀÄ/2019-20 dated 11.11.2019 and the letter No.¸ÀA:E1/

¥Áæ±Á²/¦.¥Àæ/JZï.J¸ï.JªÀiï/2019-20 dated 27.2.2020 both

issued by the 4^th respondent are quashed.

(iii)

The 4^th respondent is directed to release the

pensionary benefits as per the Nomination given by

the applicant under Rule 302(vi) of the KCSRs.

(iv) If the applicant has applied for compassionate

appointment within one year from the date of death

of the government servant, she shall be considered

for such appointment.

(v)

The recovery of amount mentioned in the letter of the

4^th respondent dated 11.11.2019, stated to be due

from the deceased government servant, should be

- 4 -

examined in detail by the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents and

if the alleged amount has to be recovered, the

process may be initiated as per rules. The aspect of

recovery, if any, should not come in the way of

considering the issue of appointment of the applicant

on compassionate grounds.

(vi) Time for compliance: THREE MONTHS from the date

of receipt of a certified copy of this order.=

Learned

Additional

Government

Advocate

appears

for

the

official

Respondent

Nos.1

to

Sri. Raghavendra Gayathri, learned counsel appears for the

6^th respondent Smt. Syeda Huseena Begum. Both the AGA

& learned counsel appearing for the private respondent

vehemently oppose the writ petition making submissions in

justification of the impugned Order and the reasons on

which it has been constructed.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

(a) One

Mr.Hussain

Basha

Makandar,

a

civil

servant, died in harness on 02.06.2019. He had divorced

the fifth respondent Smt. Ishmat Jahan and thereafter

married one Smt. Nazaneen Makandar who died on

- 5 -

05.03.2011,

having

begotten

the

petitioner

No.1

Mr.Mehaboob. Mr. Hussain Basha is said to have adopted

the second petitioner Chi. Sameena who was the seventh

respondent before the Tribunal. On the demise of second

wife, Mr. Hussain Basha espoused the sixth respondent

Smt. Syeda Huseena Begum.

(b)

After the death of Mr. Hussain Basha Makandar,

the 6^th respondent Smt. Syeda Huseena Begum had

applied for the grant of terminal benefits of the deceased

husband and also for the appointment on compassionate

ground. Her claim having been rejected vide endorsement

dated 11.11.2019 followed by the letter dated 27.02.2020

both issued by the fourth respondent-Block Education

Officer, she had grieved before the Tribunal against the

same through the subject Application; that was stoutly

opposed by the petitioners herein.

(c) The Tribunal having considered the pleadings of

parties and the material placed on record, has granted

- 6 -

relief as mentioned above by making the order now put in

challenge.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

parties and having perused the petition papers, we decline

indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

i)

The Service Tribunal having adverted to the

matter has specifically faltered the stand of official

respondents that Mr. Hussain Basha Makandar ought to

have taken prior permission for espousing Smt. Syeda

Huseena Begum and therefore terminal benefits cannot be

granted to her. It has given a cogent reason for this view

that: Mr. Hussain Basha Makandar had divorced his first

wife Smt. Ishmat Jahan, who was also a government

employee and that she has later contracted marriage wit