T N BHARAT Vs. METROPOLITAN COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the legality of the endorsement, dated 20.4.2016, whereby the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment was rejected by the Assistant Metropolitan Commissioner, Bengaluru Metropolitan Regional Development Authority ("Authority" for short). The petitioner has also challenged the resolution dated 21.1.2017, passed by the Authority, whereby the Board has rejected the petitioner's request for compassionate appointment. The petitioner has also sought the relief from this Court to direct the respondents to consider his representation dated 12.11.2007/13.11. 2007, and to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that on 12.9.1989, the petitioner's father, Mr. K. G. Narasimha Raju, was appointed as Group-D employee with the Authority. Subsequently, on 28.1.1994, his services were regularized. During the course of his service, Mr. Narasimha Raju expired on 1.5.2007, leaving behind the petitioner, another son and his wife. Immediately after the death of his father, on 12.11. 2007/13.11.2007, the petitioner submitted a representation before the Metropolitan Commissioner, the respondent No. 1, for seeking appointment on compassionate ground.

(3.) Mr. R. B. Sadasivappa, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner had filed his application for compassionate appointment immediately after his father's death. Secondly, the petitioner is already appointed as Group D employee on outsourced basis, and is working with the Bengaluru Metropolitan Regional Development Authority. Therefore, there is no reason why the petitioner's plea for compassionate appointment should be rejected by the respondent Authority. Therefore, according to him, the endorsement dated 20.4.2016, and the Board decision dated 21.1.2017, deserve to be set aside by this Court.