Karnataka HC: Receiving Financial Benefit Due To Employee’s Death Not A Bar For Compassionate Appointment

Facts in Brief

• The father of the writ petitioner was a second division clerk in BDA was dismissed from the job and had subsequently filed a case in the labour court. The order passed thereon had directed the BDA to reinstate him into service on his original post and also award full back wages from the date of dismissal and grant continuity of service with full benefits.
• However, after Prakash, the father of the writ petitioner passed away within months of reinstatement of service.
• The writ petitioner, Mr. Kiran filed a representation seeking an appointment on compassionate grounds. His request was not considered given which he approached the High Court.
• The BDA filed a detailed statement of objections which the bench didn’t find any fault with. The BDA submitted that the family had received a sum ofRs.33, 63,465/- as terminal benefits and this had obviated any hardships the family had faced.
• This order was challenged by the way of an intra-court appeal.

Submissions of Appellant

• The counsel for Appellant submitted that the BDA could not reject the claim of the Appellant on the basis that the father of the Appellant was not in service when the judgment was passed in the earlier round of litigation.
• He also contended that the labour court had granted Prakash continuity of service with all the benefits and the dismissal order was set aside and hence Prakash was deemed to be in service. He further submitted that Prakash died during the period of his employment.
• He submitted that the reasoning of the single judge bench who had earlier heard the case was not germane to the case in hand and payment of terminal benefits has no relation to the need to provide appointment on compassionate grounds.

Submissions of BDA

• The BDA submitted that the order of the single judge cannot be found fault with as it was on the grounds of equitable considerations.
• BDA contended that the Appellant cannot be considered for employment on compassionate grounds as they had received a huge sum as terminal benefits.

Court’s Observations

• The Court observed that since Prakash was granted continuity of service, the relationship between the employer and the employee stood restored from the date of dismissal of the order. Because of the order of continuity of service, Prakash was in service till the date he passed away.
• The Hon’ble Court also observed that the approach of the BDA was arbitrary and irrational.
• The Court further rejected the reasoning of the Single Judge that the family wasn’t in distress anymore as they had received a huge sum as compensation for the dismissal. The Court held that the family was a recipient of the money by virtue because of the illegal act committed by the BDA.
• Further, the Hon’ble Court observed that the receipt of terminal benefits cannot be a ground to disentitle a dependent member of the family to seek an appointment on compassionate grounds.

Court’s Order

• The Court held that the learned single judge had erred in passing the order on the grounds that the family had received financial benefits and allowed the appeal.
• It directed the Respondent, i.e. BDA to issue an order of appointment on compassionate ground to the Appellant if there’s no other legal impediment.
• The said order is directed to be carried out within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.

What do you think of this matter?