Bengaluru: The high court has directed the state-run North Western Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (NWKRTC) to appoint the 49-year-old widow of an employee to a Group D post on compassionate grounds despite her being overage.The court has also directed the NWKRTC managing director to develop a humane policy to support employees’ families in the event of staff death.The petitioner, Lakshmavva, applied for compassionate appointment in a Group D post after her husband, Ramanna Goshellanavar, who served as controller/depot manager at the Shirahatti depot in Gadag district, died on June 25, 2021. The couple had no children. Her educational qualifications met the requirements for the post, but the corporation rejected her application as she was older than the age limit of 45 years at the time of application, and thus ineligible for compassionate appointment. Lakshmavva moved the HC and argued that she had sought compassionate appointment as her husband was an NWKRTC employee, the couple had no children, and there was no one else to care for her. NWKRTC contended that age relaxation was available only for SC/ST category applicants and Lakshmavva was 45 years and seven months old at the time of submission of application. In his order, Justice Suraj Govindaraj stated, “The purpose of appointing a person on a compassionate basis is to ensure the livelihood of dependents of the deceased employee continues without any hardship, without any problem… (it) offers security to an employee that even after his expiry, his dependents would be taken care of by the employer.”He noted, “In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner is the wife of an employee who expired in harness, and she doesn’t have any children who can look after her. Though the submission on behalf of NWKRTC is that the upper age limit has been crossed, the same should have to be humanely considered by taking into account the circumstances. If the deceased employee and the petitioner had any children, they would have qualified for appointment on a compassionate basis.” “This is a case where the widow has crossed the upper age limit prescribed by the respondents, and she has no one to look after her. In such cases, such strict implementation of the upper age limit would only cause injustice and would not be in the interest of social justice,” Justice Govindaraj added.
