Allowing a writ appeal filed by Girish, 32, a division bench headed by Justice Suraj Govindaraj ordered the director of prosecution and assistant public prosecutor, JMFC court at Banahatti, to consider within 12 weeks the appellant’s representation dated June 7, 2018 for compassionate appointment as if he is a natural-born son, without making distinction between an adopted son and a natural son. Girish is a resident of Banahatti in Jamkhandi of Bagalkot district.
“In the present case, the daughter being a natural daughter, would have been entitled to compassionate appointment if not for her being mentally retarded as also physically handicapped. In such a situation, the son – who was adopted by the deceased to take care of the family on account of the death of a natural-born son – applied for compassionate appointment,” the bench noted.
“We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the application made by the adopted son for compassionate appointment is bona fide and is required to be considered in the background of the difficulties faced by the family,” the order read. The bench also pointed out that the said “rules have been amended so as to do away the artificial distinction” apparently taking into account that the same would violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
The appellant/petitioner is the adopted son of Vinayak M Muttatti, who was working as a class IV employee (Dalayat) in the office of assistant public prosecutor, JMFC court, Banahatti. He was adopted on December 8, 2011 by way of an adoption deed as Muttatti’s natural-born son died in a road accident on November 8, 2010.
When his adoptive father Vinayak Muttatti died on March 27, 2018, Girish submitted an application/representation, seeking compassionate appointment. But it was rejected by the director of prosecution on August 7, 2018, and the assistant public prosecutor on August 16, 2018, on the grounds that Girish was the adopted son and the rules do not provide for the compassionate appointment of an adopted son.
When Girish challenged the said endorsements before a single bench, the petition was dismissed on June 24, 2021, on the same grounds. Incidentally, on April 9, 2021, the government had amended the rules, doing away with the artificial distinction and the same was not brought to the notice of the single bench. In February 2022, another single bench had ruled in favour of a similarly placed applicant, on the strength of the amended rules.