R V KRISHNAPPA Vs. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPASSIONATE appointments cannot be equated with compensatory, substituted or in lieu of deceased employee is services. Compassionate appointment is conferred on account of fellow-feeling or sorrow for the suffering of another, as pity or mercy. Such appointments are resorted to in exceptional circumstances of personal reasons in a given case. This court and the administrative tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by only sympathetic consideration. Law is acknowledged to be the embodiment of all wisdom, and Justice according to law is a principle as old as the seas on the earth. The apex court in Martin Burn Limited v Corporation of Calcutta, Observed:

(2.) IN the background of what is noted herein above we are called upon to decide in this petition, "the question whether the dependant member of the family of a deceased employee is entitled for an appointment on compassionate grounds in spite of two other major members who are living separately are employed either with the same employer or anywhere else". This question of law has been referred to us in view of the two different decisions of the single bench of this court. One being Susheela B. Bhakta and another v Karnataka State Road Transport corporation, bangalore and another and the other Case is Srikanth v Chief engineer, k. e. b. , Bangalore and others. In susheela B. Bhakta's case, supra, it was held:

(3.) THE facts which necessitated the authoritative pronouncement by this bench are after the death of his father viz. , ugrappa, the petitioner herein prayed for his appointment as junior assistant on compassionate grounds. At the time of his death the said ugrappa was in the service of the respondent-board as mechanic grade-ii and died due to brain tumour on 9-12-1991. The said Sri ugrappa left behind his wife Smt. Gowramma and three sons, the third being the petitioner. It is submitted that at the time of his death the father of the petitioner was the only breadearner of the family. After his death the family came to a State of starvation without any source of livelihood. It was further contended that the two other brothers of the petitioner who are admittedly in service, had allegedly separated from the family about ten years before the death of his father. The application for compassionate appointment was rejected by the respondent-board against which the petitioner filed w. p. No. 10910 of 1993 which was disposed of on 11-11-1993, directing the respondent-board to consider petitioner's request for appointment on compassionate grounds. The board again by its endorsement dated 20-7-1995, Annexure-G rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the family had sufficient means and source of living. The petitioner contended that the board had under similar circumstances granted employment to the petitioners in w. p. nos. 28042 to 28045 of 1991. It is contended that the petitioner was fully qualified and eligible for appointment on compassionate ground and did not suffer from any disqualification. It is alleged that the board was not justified in holding that the income of the family of the petitioner was sufficient because they have wrongly included the income of the two brothers of the petitioner who were stated to have been living separately during the life time of petitioner's father.