Compassionate appointment for woman who lost father, brother in harness mishap

Rule to allow married women a job on compassionate grounds was incorporated when her case was pending

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has dismissed a challenge by the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) to a single-judge order that had directed it to consider the appointment of a 27-year-old woman on compassionate grounds.

She had lost both her father and brother during harness. The KPTCL contended that since she was married and Rules prevailing at the time did not allow it, she cannot be appointed. However, the Rules had been amended while her case before a single-judge bench was still pending.

A division bench has now said that the amendment was taken note of by the single judge and she is eligible for appointment. BD Monika, a resident of Chennarayapatna, filed an application before the KPTCL seeking compassionate appointment after her father Dharanesh and brother who were the Corporation’s employees died on duty.

The Corporation rejected it on February 5, 2020 on the ground that she was married and therefore not eligible for compassionate appointment. Monika challenged this before a single-judge bench of the HC, which remitted the matter to the KPTCL to consider her case as there was an amendment to the Compassionate Appointment Rules that made married daughters also eligible for such appointments.

The KPTCL challenged this before a division bench in 2021. Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty gave their judgment recently. The KPTCL contended as on the date of its endorsement on February 5, 2020, “Rules relating to appointment on compassionate grounds was not amended, and therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in allowing the writ petition.”

It was argued that the amendment to the Rules would apply only prospectively and not retrospectively. The Division Bench noted that the single judge bench’s order took into account the fact that the State government amended the rules while the case was pending.

“In the light of the amendment to the compassionate appointment Rules of the State government, if the petitioner is otherwise found eligible, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the said order,” of the single judge, the Division Bench said.

Dismissing the appeal filed by the KPTCL, the HC said, “It is not in dispute that as on the date of the amendment of the relevant Rules, the writ petition filed by respondent No 1 (Monika) was pending consideration before this Court, and therefore, the learned Single Judge was fully justified in allowing the writ petition.”