Monday, January 30, 2023

Supreme Court expresses displeasure over plea challenging compassionate appointment

Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.

The Supreme Court has expressed its displeasure over the plea filed by the Director General and Inspector General of Police, State of Karnataka and two others, challenging the claim of a widow for compassionate appointment on the basis of delay.

A two-judge Bench of Justices M.R. Shah & B.V. Nagarathna dismissed a Petition filed by Director General and Inspector General of Police, Karnataka State, and The Inspector General of Police, Mangalore & The Superintendent of Police, Uttara Kannada District, Karwar, against High Court of Karnataka order directing them to consider the claim of the respondent/ Smt Renuka for grant of compassionate appointment.

The Supreme Court has noted that

“the petitioners ought not to have filed the Special leave petition. The special leave petition stands dismissed. If the impugned judgment and order passed by the high courts is not complied with, the petitioners are directed to comply with the same within a period of four weeks from today without fail.”

The present plea was filed against the order of the Karnataka High Court which had upheld the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, which in turn had turned down appeal of State Police Department in terms of Rule-5 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, which provides for submission of the application within one year. The high court pointed out that the application was filed by widow within the prescribed period of time as per Rule-5 and upheld the order passed by the Tribunal.

Also Read: Supreme Court assures ayurvedic doctors of being treated at par with allopathic doctors under NHRM

Background of the case

Late. Basavaraja A. Malaga/ Husband of Renuka was appointed in the year 1999, in the State Police Department and he was discharged from duty on 22.07.2000 on the ground of unauthorized absence from the duty and later he had challenged the same before the Tribunal by filing an Application No. 7550 / 2001. Application was allowed on 23.06.2004 and the order of discharge dated 22.07.2000 was set aside.

In spite of the fact that the order of discharge was set aside, he was not permitted to join duty and the Superintendent of Police, Uttara Kannada District, Karwar, issued an endorsement dated 17.12.2004 that he has already been relieved and therefore, he cannot be permitted to join.

Therefore, the he had filed another application before the Tribunal but unfortunately, he expired during the pendency of the application on 12.07.2006. The application was finally decided by the Tribunal setting aside the order passed by the Government holding that the legal representatives shall be entitled for all consequential benefits on 05.02.2010.

An application was preferred by the Respondent/widow for grant of compassionate appointment and the same has been turned down by the Department on 26.06.2012 stating that the application was preferred after four years from the date of death of her husband. The same was challenged before the Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed her application.

Also Read: Pegasus controversy: Supreme Court-appointed technical committee seeks public views on security, privacy

The state police department moved the High Court of Karnataka challenging the same. The high court dismissed the appeal of the State police department and had observed that application for bringing the legal representatives on record was allowed and the respondent being the legal representative was held to be entitled for all consequential benefits she has submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 29.01.2011 and filed within 1 year from the date of the order passed by the Tribunal, hence it could not have been rejected in the manner and method it has been done by the petitioners/state police department.

The High Court had directed the State police department to consider the claim of the respondent/widow for grant of compassionate appointment within a period of two months and to pass consequential order in the matter.

Case Name- The Director General & Inspector General of Police & ors. Vs Renuka

Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.

News Update