Karnataka HC sets out guidelines for compassionate appointment, directs state to prepare standard operating procedure
A bench of Justices Mohammad Nawaz and K S Hemalekha of the high court's Kalaburagi bench stated that regardless of whether applications are in the correct format or not, the authorities have to acknowledge them in 30 days along with information on the status of the application, any issues with documentation/formatting, limitation period, and rights of other dependents. The final decision has to be rendered within 90 days with a reasoned order. The court also directed that proactive steps have to be taken to assist widows and illiterate persons.
The order came in a case related to the widow of Raja Patel Banda, who was a peon at the Jewargi tahsildar's office and died while on duty in 2014. Although his widow applied for a pension, retirement benefits, and a job for one of her sons on compassionate grounds, there was no official response.
Later, the state rejected an application that one of her sons submitted in October 2015 on the grounds of his having crossed the age limit. In February 2017, her younger son applied for a job on compassionate grounds. This application was rejected as, according to the regulations, any such application had to be submitted within one year of the death of the employee.
The family successfully challenged the rejection before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (Kalaburagi), after which the state approached the high court, arguing that the appointment was not a matter of right and had to follow rules concerning the time period, failing which there was a possibility of claims being put forward indefinitely.
On the other hand, the opposing counsel stated that it was an exceptional case where the widow, who was illiterate, had made an application within a year of her husband's death, expressing a clear intent. It was the duty of the relevant department to have guided her regarding the technicalities, he further argued.
The court agreed, stating, 'The intent was unambiguous. The authorities had the opportunity to consider and guide the family. The applications submitted by the widow ought to have been rejected or communicated to her. There was no intimation whatsoever….Had she been informed, she could have applied or rather asked her sons to make necessary applications within time.'
The court dismissed the state's petition against the appointment, noting that the state has a duty to ensure procedural fairness in such cases.
The court also said, 'A uniform Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and training of officials handling compassionate appointments should be made by the Government to ensure no procedural lapses.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
43 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Karnataka HC quashes gag order on online media channel over Dharmasthala case reports
The Karnataka High Court on Friday quashed a gag order on Mangaluru-based online media channel Kudla Rampage related to its reports on the Dharmasthala 'secret burials' case. 'The concerned court, at the threshold and without the benefit of adversarial hearing, has ventured to grant a sweeping mandatory injunction, a relief which ordinarily ought to await the culmination of the trial,' Justice M Nagaprasanna said, remanding the matter to the lower court to be heard afresh. The court also came down strongly on some of the reasoning in the gag order. 'The impugned order though spanning multiple pages, conspicuously lacks the foundational reason……the order may span pages, but spanning pages has not depicted application of mind. It is application of mind that is required, in a reasoned order, and not application of ink,' Justice Nagaprasanna added. The Additional City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru had on July 18 granted an ex parte injunction to delete 8,812 links related to the Dharmasthala burials case. The injunction was based on a petition filed by Harshendra Kumar D, brother of BJP MP D Veerendra Heggade and secretary of the Shri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara Educational Society. The channel's counsel, A Velan, had argued that an injunction, which was doubtful at the closing stages of the case, had been granted in the interlocutory stage itself, and said that this was violative of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). Arguing that it was a case of restraint on freedom of speech, he further pointed out that there was no reasoning behind passing a 'John Doe' order in this case. John Doe orders are orders where a defendant is unknown. Velan also asserted that the order, in a matter of public importance, was creating a perpetual gag order on future speakers. Representing Harshendra Kumar, senior advocate Udaya Holla argued that the petition by Kudla Rampage was not permissible under Article 227 of the Constitution, as the petitioner had not availed the remedy under the CPC to vacate the order. He also stated that the high court had twice directed the channel to be banned, stating that in a case which was being investigated, it was producing defamatory content projecting Kumar to be guilty and creating defamatory content. The bench stated that the injunction at this stage had the character of a final order, explaining, 'The impugned order…while ostensibly couched as an interim measure, in truth and effect, partakes the character of a final determination.' The bench also pointed out multiple Supreme Court precedents with regard to the type of reasoning required for passing an ex parte order or interim injunction in such cases. The court also clarified that 'John Doe' or 'Ashok Kumar orders', as they are known in India, ought to be granted only with great caution, observing that the current order was wide enough that any voice against Kumar, his family or the location of the incident would be caught in it. The court added, 'The order speaks of prohibition of defamatory statements. Not one word of what kind of statements are defamatory for the Court to pass the aforequoted order is found in the order.' The court then quashed the ex parte order as far as it pertains to Kudla Rampage.
Fibre2Fashion
an hour ago
- Fibre2Fashion
Trump's penalty talks create unease in Indian textile industry
In what many see as a major escalation of trade tensions, US President Donald Trump on July 30 announced a sweeping 25 per cent tariff on all goods imported from India even as India's competitors, including Pakistan, Vietnam, Bangladesh and Turkiye, were levied lower tariffs of 15-20 per cent. The move has sparked concerns across sectors in India, especially after Trump also mentioned of an additional, unspecified penalty related to India's ongoing trade relations with Russia, specifically its purchases of crude oil. US President Donald Trump announced a 25 per cent tariff on all Indian imports. The move is compounded by Trump's warning of an unspecified penalty tied to India's ongoing trade relations with Russia, particularly its purchase of crude oil. The lack of clarity around the unspecified penalty has created unease in Indian business circles, especially among apparel exporters. While the announcement was made without detailing the nature of the additional penalty, industry leaders and policymakers are concerned over its ramifications and long-term implications. Reacting to the latest development, India's Ministry of Commerce and Industry issued an official response, as reported by various media outlets. The statement emphasised that the Indian Government is closely examining the implications of the US President's announcement. 'The Government is studying its implications. India and the US have been engaged in negotiations on concluding a fair, balanced and mutually beneficial bilateral trade agreement over the last few months. We remain committed to that objective,' the ministry reportedly underlined. The statement also reassured stakeholders that national interests would be protected. 'The Government attaches the utmost importance to protecting and promoting the welfare of our farmers, entrepreneurs, and MSMEs. The Government will take all steps necessary to secure our national interest, as has been the case with other trade agreements, including the latest Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the UK,' the ministry reportedly added. Adding another dimension, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, just a day after Trump's tariff announcement, underlined Washington's dissatisfaction with India's continuing imports from Russia, as reported in certain sections of the media. 'India's purchase of oil from Russia is most certainly a point of irritation,' Rubio reportedly said speaking to a radio channel. Experts are thus viewing Trump's tariff imposition not just through the lens of protectionism, but as part of a broader geopolitical agenda. Some analysts believe the punitive measures reflect the US' discomfort with India's increasing strategic autonomy and its deepening economic engagement with Russia. Of particular concern to Indian exporters is the ambiguity surrounding the 'unspecified penalty' mentioned by Trump. The lack of clarity on this additional measure has created unease in the business circles. Sudhir Sekhri, chairman of the Apparel Export Promotion Council (AEPC) , reflected this sentiment, stating, 'The penalty is a grey area, and we hope the Government of India (GOI) will negotiate this with the US…' Echoing similar concerns, Rajeev Gupta, joint managing director of RSWM Ltd, earlier told Fibre2Fashion , 'Indian entrepreneurs and manufacturers are resilient, and we are confident that business momentum will be consistently rising with planned strategies. What remains crucial is clarity on the tariff position against China,' even as he added, 'A more pressing concern is the undefined penalty clause linked to India's ties with Russia, which adds a layer of uncertainty.' The timing of this development is critical, as both countries have been actively engaged in negotiations for a mutually beneficial trade agreement. India's recent efforts to diversify trade relationships, including the signing of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with the UK, many feel, signals a broader strategy to reduce dependence on any one market even as they added the US nonetheless remains one of India's largest trading partners, and any disruption in this relationship could have far-reaching implications for key export sectors such as textiles. 'The Free Trade Agreement with the UK opens up varied opportunities and is a welcoming move,' claimed an industry player interacting with Fibre2Fashion, who expressed apprehensions over the penalty ramifications if not sorted out soon. However, as things stand now, the Indian exporters seem to be adopting a cautious approach, a wait and watch policy to see how things unfold in the days to come as the steep duty imposed by US could hurt nearly half of India's exports, as per some estimates, adding to which is now the threat of additional penalty. Fibre2Fashion News Desk (DR)
New Indian Express
3 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Karnataka High Court quashes injunction against Dakshina Kannada media house
BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court on Friday quashed the ex-parte ad-interim injunction order passed by a city sessions court restraining a Dakshina Kannada-based digital media house from reporting defamatory news linking the family members of Harshendra Kumar D and the Dharmasthala temple administration to the ongoing investigation into the alleged mass burial case. However, the court remitted the matter to the sessions court with a direction to consider the interlocutory applications afresh, bearing in mind the observations made in the order. Justice M Nagaprasanna pronounced the order while partly allowing the petition filed by 'Kudla Rampage', which challenged the legality of the injunction order dated July 18, passed by the 10th Additional City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru. Making clear that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the civil suit pending before the sessions court and also the criminal proceedings or the veracity of the allegations and the counter allegations, the high court said all contentions, except the one considered in this petition, should remain open and the petitioner and other parties should extend their full cooperation to the sessions court in passing the necessary orders. The petitioner was one among the 338 defendants before the sessions court, which passed the ex-parte injunction order restraining defamatory reporting against the plaintiff, his family, the temple administration and its affiliated institutions. It was also directed for the removal and de-indexing of over 8,842 web links.
