Contract Between Two Persons Allowing The Other To Seek Compassionate Appointment Not Binding On State: Karnataka High Court

A single judge bench of Justice S G Pandit dismissed the petition filed by Manjula. N seeking a direction to Deputy Commissioner of Police City, Armed Reserve Force, to consider her application for appointment on compassionate grounds.

It was the claim of petitioner that she is the legally wedded wife of one Late H.S.Siddaraju who was working as Police Constable in the City Armed Reserve Police Force, he died on 03.01.2014. Even though the petitioner was a legally wedded wife, pensionary benefits were paid to the third respondent (nominee).

Further, it was said the petitioner and the third respondent had arrived at a settlement wherein the third respondent agreed that the petitioner could seek compassionate appointment from the Department.

On the other hand the government advocate argued that the third respondent was the nominee to receive pensionary benefits and as such pensionary benefits of late H S Siddaraju, were settled in her favour. Further, there is no document nor the petitioner has established that she is the legally wedded wife of Late H.S.Siddaraju. The agreement entered into between the petitioner and the third respondent would not be binding on the respondent authorities.

Findings:

The bench noted there is no material on record to establish that the petitioner married Late H.S.Siddaraju nor the petitioner has established her marriage by approaching the appropriate Civil Court.

Further it said, "The third respondent was a nominee of Late H.S.Siddaraju in service records and accordingly, the service benefits are paid to the third respondent. A nominee of a Government servant would be entitled to receive service benefits and to consequential benefits."

Then it observed, "The petitioner has entered into an agreement with third respondent dated 17.02.2014, has no right to claim compassionate appointment or pensionary benefits since she has not established that she is the legally wedded wife of Late H.S.Siddaraju."

It added, "The agreement entered into between the petitioner and the third respondent would not be binding on the State Government. The said agreement cannot be enforced against the State since they are not parties."

Finally it opined, "The compassionate appointment is covered under 1996 Rules. The Agreement entered into between the petitioner and the third respondent cannot be contrary to 1996 Rules. Moreover, compassionate appointments cannot be claimed as a matter of right."

Case Title: MANJULA.N v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BANGALORE CITY POLICE

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.33134/2016

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 437

Date of Order: 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

Appearance: K.R.SREENIVASA, Advocate for petitioner; M.V.RAMESH JOIS, AGA. FOR R1 AND R2

Click Here To Read/Download Order