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 & 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”
Judgement reviewed by Pratikshya Pattnaik