It is pointed out that the respondent had filed first application on 2.12.1996 which was rejected on 11/13.11.1997.
As numbered above, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
The same was rejected on 9.6.2000 by stating that numberapplication was pending on the date when Amendment Rules came into force and, therefore, the Rules as amended had numberapplication to his case.
The respondent was born on 20.10.1977 and was hardly two months old at the time when his father expired.
By order dated 19.9.2001 Tribunal allowed the petition and directed the present appellants to companysider the case of the respondent for appointment on companypassionate grounds without regard to any period of limitation referred to in the letter dated 9.6.2000.
The said application on 11/13.11.1997 was rejected on the ground that the application had number been filed within time i.e. within one year of attaining majority.
The said Rule was amended by the Amendment Rules w.e.f 1.4.1999 by substituting the existing proviso in the following manner Provided that in the case of a minor, he must have make an application within one year from the date of death of the Government servant and he must have attained the age of eighteen years on the date of making the application.
He filed another application on 22.4.1998 which was also number entertained.
Another application was filed on 22.4.1998 which was number entertained.
He attained majority on 20.10.1995.
The last application was filed on 29.11.1999, obviously, after the Amendment Rules came into force.
Provided that in the case of a minor, application shall be made within a period of one year after attaining majority.
By the impugned judgment the view expressed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in short Tribunal about such entitlement of the respondent was upheld.
Factual position is almost undisputed and needs to be numbered in brief Respondents father Ramachandra Narayan Bhat who was a government servant died on 21.12.1977.
The respondent approached the Tribunal questioning the order of rejection.
The appellants questioned companyrectness of Tribunals decision before the High Court.
Respondent filed another application on 29.11.1999.
He submitted an application on 2.12.1996 seeking appointment on companypassionate grounds purportedly under the Karnataka Civil Services Appointment on Compassionate Grounds Rules, 1990 in short the Rules .
Provided further that numberhing in the first proviso shall apply to an application made by the dependant of a deceased Government Servant, after attaining majority and which was pending for companysideration on the date of companymencement of the Karnataka Civil Services Appointment on Compassionate Grounds Amendment Rules, 1998.
Certain amendments were made to the Rules by the Karnataka Civil Services Appointment on Compassionate Grounds Amendment Rules, 1998 in short Amendment Rules which were operative with effect from 1.4.1999.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. The appellant State and its functionaries call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court holding that the respondent was entitled to be appointed on companypassionate grounds.
