IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

WRIT PETITION NO.211068 OF 2020 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

KUMARI SWETA

D/O LATE PUSHPA

AGE: 19 YEARS

OCC: NIL,

R/O H.NO. KEB QTR.NO. L-12/2,

KEB COLONY

OLD JEWARGI ROAD,

KALABURAGI

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA K BABSHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND

1 . THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

KPTCL, CORPORATE OFFICE

KAVERI BHAVAN

BANGALORE-560009

2 . THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ELCTY)

O & M ZONE

GESCOM

KALABURGI-585101

3 . THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTY)

O & M CITY SUB-ZONE-II,

R

2

GESCOM

KALABURAGI-585101

4 . THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)

O & M CITY DIVISION

GESCOM

KALABURAGI-585101

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI )

THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A

WRIT OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED

09.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING NO.

VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND CIRCULAR DATED 23.09.2011 ISSUED

BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, ONLY IN RESPECT OF AN ADOPTED

SON OR DAUGHTER OF THE DECEASED EMPLOYEE ARE NOT

ELIGIBLE

ARE

NOT

ELIGIBLE

FOR

APPOINTMENT

ON

COMPASSIONATE GROUND, IN NO- KPTCL/ B5/721/80-81 VIDE

ANNEXURE-K; AND ETC.

THIS PETITION IS COMING FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

O R D E R

In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the

endorsement dated 09^th December, 2019 issued by the

respondent-Corporation, declining the claim made by the

petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that, mother of the

petitioner-Smt. Pushpa, who was working in the respondent-

3

Corporation was a widow and died issueless. It is further stated

that, after the death of her husband, mother of the petitioner

Smt. Pushpa, adopted the petitioner by a registered Deed of

Adoption dated 30^th November, 2001. The name of the

petitioner was entered as a nominee for family pension of the

mother of the petitioner in the records of the respondent-

Corporation. It is further stated that the mother of the petitioner

died while in service and as such, the petitioner was constrained

to vacate the premises allotted by the respondent-Corporation.

It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner is the only

daughter to the deceased-Pushpa and as such, the petitioner

made a representation to the respondent-Corporation seeking

appointment on compassionate ground. It is the further case of

the petitioner that the petitioner has provided all relevant

documents to the second respondent for consideration of her

case for appointment on compassionate ground, however, the

second respondent issued impugned endorsement dated 09^th

December, 2019, rejecting the representation made by the

petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground by stating

that she being an adopted child of the deceased employee-

4

Pushpa and as per the Circular issued by the first respondent-

Corporation, the adopted son/daughter are not eligible of

appointment on compassionate ground and accordingly, issued

the impugned endorsement that, the petitioner is not entitled for

appointment on compassionate ground. Being aggrieved by the

same, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.

3. Sri Sharanabasappa K. Babashetty, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has

been adopted by the deceased employee (Smt. Pushpa) as per

the registered Deed of Adoption dated 30^th November, 2001 and

the action of the respondent-Corporation in declining to appoint

the adopted children on compassionate ground is contrary to

Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He further contended that

the Circular issued by the respondent-Corporation to that effect

has to be read down and effectuate the adopted child to the

benefit for appointment under compassionate ground.

4. Sri Ravindra Reddy, learned counsel for the

respondent-Corporati