PUSHPAVATHI Vs. CHAIRMAN MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first petitioner is the mother of the petitioners 2 to 4 and the legally wedded wife of late Raj anna who was working as a Conductor in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called as 'corporation' in short), have filed this writ petition seeking common relief by issuing a writ of cerliorari to quash the order dated 12/18-10-1994 Annexure-H issued by the 3rd respondent and further have sought for issuance of a mandamus to the respondents to consider the case of the 2nd petitioner for his appointment in any suitable post on compassionate grounds, as there are no other members of the petitioners family earning for their bread. Therefore, the present petition is filed urging various facts and legal contentions.

(2.) THE brief facts which are necessary for the purpose of considering the rival contentions of the parties are stated as hereunder: late Rajanna, husband of the first petitioner and father of the petitioners 2 to 4 was working as a Conductor in the 3rd respondent in chickmagalur Depot of the Corporation. While he was in service, he was suffering from Parkinsonsm disease. Therefore, he submitted representations dated 2-9-1992 and 2-11-1992 to the 3rd respondent requesting him to post him as Second Division Clerk on medical grounds by producing medical certificate issued by the NIMHANS. Later as per the directions of the Corporation, he has appeared before the Medical Board at Chamarajendra Hospital at Hassan. The said Medical Board examined and certified that he has completely" and permanently incapacitated and further service of him in any post in the Corporation is not possible as he has been suffering from Parkinsonism disease and he was issued with the certificate dated 3-3-1993 vide Annexure-A.

(3.) THE 3rd respondent instead of providing an alternative job as per regulation 20 (3) of the KSRTC (C and R) Regulations (hereinafter referred to as 'regulations' in short), and therefore late Rajanna was compulsorily retired vide order dated 6-4-1993 as per Annexure-B. Therefore, late Rajanna represented to the first respondent-Corporation stating that he has become medically incapacitated to work in the Corporation and requested to provide employment to the second petitioner who is his son on compassionate ground, as he had passed PUC course and there were no other bread earning members in the family of the petitioners as all the family members were depending on late Rajanna for their livelihood, The 2nd respondent intimated to the KSRTC Staff and Workers Federation who took up the case of the second petitioner, stating that the representation of the deceased Rajanna was forwarded to the 3rd respondent for taking action as per the circular bearing No. 840 of 1991, dated 13-4-1993 vide Annexure-E. It is stated that no action was taken by the respondents on the representation of the deceased rajanna. Therefore, the petitioners 1 and 2 filed Writ Petition No. 7712 of 1994 before this Court and sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide suitable employment to the second petitioner. The said writ petition was disposed of on 13-4-1994 in terms of the following order: