Karnataka high court bins compassionate appointmentplea by state transport corporation bus driver’s adopted son | Bengaluru News

Bengaluru: The high court has dismissed a writ appeal filed by the adopted son of a deceased KSRTC driver, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds because of policy exclusion and delay.“It is well-settled that compassionate appointment is a welfare measure adopted by the employer/govt/govt agencies to save the bereaved family of an employee from destitution and to overcome the financial difficulty which would arise because of the sudden demise of the family breadwinner. It is not the vested right of a dependent of the deceased employee to seek appointment at any point of time,” a division bench observed.The bench of Justices DK Singh and Rajesh Rai K, dismissed the plea filed by Vinayaka Madenahalli, a resident of Hirekerur in Haveri district.Almost five years after his father Chandrappa Madenahalli’s death in Feb 2014, Vinayaka first applied for a compassionate appointment in KSRTC on Feb 13, 2019. The transport utility rejected the application on May 8, 2019, and his two subsequent applications, submitted in Aug 2021. He then approached the high court, where a single bench rejected his petition on July 10, 2024.The appellant contended that he had submitted an earlier application on April 5, 2014. KSRTC opposed this, citing its policy which specifically prohibits compassionate appointment for an adopted son or daughter. The division bench noted that Vinayaka did not raise the April 5, 2014, application in earlier proceedings and that his first application was, according to his own averments, filed on Feb 13, 2019.In 2018, Vinayaka filed an original suit before the additional civil judge and JMFC at Hirekerur seeking a declaration that he was the adopted son of the late Madenahalli. That suit, which was uncontested, was decreed on Jan 24, 2019. The bench noted that the suit appeared to be a policy suit to support his claim for a govt post.KSRTC policy requires an application for compassionate appointment within one year of the death of the employee and excludes adopted children. Considering the policy bar and the five-year delay, the bench found the appeal devoid of merit. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Canara Bank vs Ajith Kumar case, it dismissed the appeal.|