In a significant ruling on compassionate appointment, the Karnataka High Court held that denial of benefits based on unverified allegations of a second marriage - without supporting evidence - violates principles of natural justice and corporate records. The judgment underscores that administrative decisions must align with documented service records, not speculative claims.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners - Shailaja (wife), Pradeep, and Praveen Kumar (sons) - sought compassionate appointment following the death of Ashok Kumar, a conductor employed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC). Ashok Kumar had nominated Shailaja as the beneficiary for terminal benefits, including provident fund, gratuity, and insurance, which were duly disbursed to the petitioners. Despite this, the respondents rejected their application for compassionate appointment on the ground that Shailaja was Ashok Kumar’s second wife and her children were ineligible.
Key Facts
- Ashok Kumar’s Employment: Worked as a conductor (Badge No. 5154) in Raichur Division of KSRTC until his death on 17.08.2011.
- Nomination and Service Records: Ashok Kumar nominated Shailaja for terminal benefits and listed her and their children in all service records. Payments were made to the petitioners as per DEO dated 20.12.2011 (Annexures C, C1, C2, C3).
- Application for Compassionate Appointment: Filed on 12.01.2012, seeking appointment under KSRTC’s compassionate scheme.
- Rejection Grounds: The respondents rejected the application via endorsement dated 30.01.2017 (Annexure-D), alleging Ashok Kumar’s prior marriage without providing evidence.
- Legal Notices: Petitioners issued notices (Annexure-E dated 14.02.2020 and Annexure-F dated 16.11.2022) demanding action, but the respondents failed to respond.
Procedural History
- 12.01.2012: Petitioners filed application for compassionate appointment.
- 22.07.2014: Divisional Controller, Kolar Division, rejected the application, citing Ashok Kumar’s alleged second marriage.
- WP No. 40005/2014: Petitioners challenged the rejection; the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the rejection on grounds of illegality of the second marriage.
- 30.01.2017: Impugned endorsement (Annexure-D) issued, reiterating the rejection.
- 2023: Present writ petition (WP No. 201454/2023) filed before the Karnataka High Court, Kalaburagi Bench.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Quashing of the endorsement dated 30.01.2017 (Annexure-D) rejecting their application.
- A writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to one of the petitioners, with seniority based on the date of application.
- Any other relief deemed fit by the Court.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the KSRTC could deny compassionate appointment to the petitioners based on an unverified allegation of a second marriage
