Inaction on the part of the official notification harnessing the purpose of justice can led to punishments- Karnataka High Court
Inaction on the part of the official notification harnessing the purpose of justice can led to punishments- Karnataka High Court The brief facts of the case are – A writ petition was filed under articles 226 &amp; 227 of the constitution of India, praying to direct the respondents to give suitable job to the petitioner in the temple in place of her late husband on compassionate grounds. This writ petition coming on for “preliminary hearing” the issue as to whether this petition was maintainable or not was raised before the court which was decided by the judgement of NAGARANTHA VS STATE OF KARNATAKA (WRP-52447/2O14) decided by the single judge bench of JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs to issue Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents No.1 to 3 to give suitable job to the petitioner in the 4th respondent temple in place of her late husband on compassionate grounds.  Pass such other and further orders as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the, second respondent was directed to appear before this Court with all the records. He has appeared through Video Conference. The order dated 30.11.2018 reads as under: “In the instant petition, petitioner has sought for a direction to respondent nos.1 to 3 to give suitable job to the petitioner in the 4th respondent – temple on compassionate ground. Respondent no.2 is hereby directed to pass a speaking order, “”Whether petitioner is entitled for appointment or not and furnish a copy of the order on or before the next date of hearing. List this matter after eight weeks.” The learned counsel of the respondent stated that State Government has directed the third respondent Executive Officer to issue order of appointment to the petitioner vide order dated 27.10.2020.Perusal of the dates and events and the fact that the writ petition is pending consideration for the last six years and that too for a writ of mandamus, the second respondent has slept over the matter in not considering the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment. The object of issuance of compassionate appointment is to meet immediate harness in the family. Inaction on the part of the official 5 respondent resulted in harness in the family. After noting the facts and argument of both the parties the High court of Karnataka stated that “the petitioner had approached the respondents for which, there was no action. Consequently, the petitioner was compelled to file the present petition. The reasons for inaction on the part of the official respondent are that State has filed a Criminal Appeal and it is pending consideration since the year 2014. Undisputedly, there is no stay of the trial court order in Criminal Appeal. Therefore, in all fairness, the respondents should have considered the petitioner’s name for compassionate appointment at least subject to result of 6 Criminal Appeal. While issuing a demand draft of Rs.10,000/- within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, since respondent Nos.3 and 4 have paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- in terms of the order dated 16.10.2020, this matter for compliance on 04.12.2020. Accordingly, the petition is allowed”
 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION No.52447 2O14B.K. NAGARATHNA W O LATE ANGADAPRATHAP SIMHA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R AT BILGUL VILLAGE NANJANGUD TALUK MYSORE 571312. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF MUZRAI BANGALORE 560001. BY SRI. RUDRAPPA P. ADV.THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MUZARAI GOVT. OF KARNATAKA OPP. MINTO HOSPITAL MAHADEVESHVARA COMPLEX BENGALURU 560004. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER SRI SRIKANTESHWARA TEMPLE NANJANGUD TALUK MYSORE 571312. 2 SRI. SRIKANTESHWARA TEMPLE REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER NANJANGUD TALUK MYSORE 571312. B.P. SUDHARSHAN AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R AT 58 3RD CROSS HALLADHA KARE NANJANGUD TALUK MYSORE 571312. BY SRI. LAXMINARAYAN AGA FOR R1 TO R3 SRI. T.N. RAGHUPATHY ADV. FOR R3 & 4 V O DATED 22.01.2015 NOTICE TO R5 DISPENSED WITH) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R 1 TO 3 TO GIVE SUITABLE JOB TO THE PETITIONER IN THE R 4 IN PLACE OF HER LATE HUSBAND ON COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS. THIS WP COMING ON FOR “PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP” THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: In the instant petition the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: To issue Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents No.1 to 3 to give suitable job to the petitioner in the 4th respondent temple in place of her late husband on compassionate grounds. Pass such other and further orders as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the.” 3 2. On 16.10.2020 the following order has passed: “Due to non compliance of the order dated 30.11.2018 on 09.10.2020 second respondent was directed to appear before this Court with all the records. He has appeared through Video Conference. The order dated 30.11.2018 reads as under: “In the instant petition petitioner has sought for a direction to respondent nos.1 to 3 to give suitable job to the petitioner in compassionate ground. List this matter after eight weeks.” Respondent no.2 is hereby directed to pass a speaking order “”Whether petitioner is entitled for appointment or not’’ and furnish a copy of the order on or before the next date of hearing. The aforesaid order has not been complied despite lapse of about nearly two years. Today Sri.Dayanand second respondent Commissioner submitted that due to pendency of criminal case against the petitioner grievance of the petitioner has not been set right. On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that criminal proceedings in S.C.No.236 2011 wherein petitioner was acquitted on 28.02.2013 and Crl.Appeal No.541 2013 is pending consideration. In view of the stage of the criminal proceedings respondent should have passed a speaking order deferring the matter relating to consideration of the petitioner’s grievance. Till date no such order has been passed. Matter is of the year 2014. For the last six years matter is though petitioner has been pending even acquitted as on 28.02.2013. At the best second respondent should have appointed the petitioner subject to result of the Crl. Appeal No.541 2013 4 since there is no stay suspension of acquittal S.C.No.236 2011. Thus there is an inaction on the part of the second respondent. In other words second respondent has slept over the file for these many years. Consequently second respondent is liable to pay Rs.10 000 to the The second respondent is hereby directed to comply the order dated 30.11.2018 before the next date of hearing. Failing which adverse order would be passed. respondent is dispensed until further orders. Re list this petition on 02.11.2020.” Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 16.10.2020 State Government has directed the third respondent Executive Officer to issue order of appointment to the petitioner vide order dated 27.10.2020. Perusal of the dates and events and the fact that the writ petition is pending consideration for the last six years and that too for a writ of mandamus the second respondent has slept over the matter in not considering the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment. The object of issuance of compassionate appointment is to meet immediate harness in the family. Inaction on the part of the official 5 respondent resulted in harness in the family. Now in view of the order dated 27.10.2020 the third respondent Executive Officer is hereby directed to issue order of appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner within one month from today. Writ petition stands allowed with a cost of Rs.25 000 and cost shall be paid to the petitioner from the office of the second respondent for the reasons that the petitioner’s grievance relating to compassionate appointment was not considered on account of the alleged involvement of petitioner in a criminal proceedings which has concluded in favour of petitioner in the year 2013. Thereafter the petitioner had approached the respondents for which there was no action. Consequently the petitioner was compelled to file the present petition. The reasons for inaction on the part of the official respondent is that State has filed a Criminal Appeal and it is pending consideration since the year 2014. Undisputedly there is no stay of the trial court order in Criminal Appeal. Therefore in all fairness the respondents should have considered the petitioner’s name for compassionate appointment at least subject to result of 6 Criminal Appeal. Thus there is an inaction on the part of the official respondent for the last six years. Cost of Rs.25 000 shall be paid within a period of two months. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 submitted on instructions while implementing the order dated 16.10.2020 the second respondent has directed the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to pay the cost of Rs.10 000 . When the order dated 16.10.2020 is crystal clear asking the second respondent to pay the cost of Rs.10 000 it is not appropriate in directing the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to pay the cost of Rs.10 000 for no fault on their part. Therefore the second respondent is hereby directed to pay Rs.10 000 from his pocket to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 temple while issuing a demand draft of Rs.10 000 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order since respondent Nos.3 and 4 have paid a sum of Rs.10 000 in terms of the order dated 16.10.2020. 7 Re list this matter for compliance on 04.12.2020. Accordingly the petition is allowed. Sd JUDGE CT HR 