Dismissed¶45

Kalavati D/O Late Subbarao Tirumale v. the State of Karnataka

Compassionate appointment – Delay and lack of diligence

Karnataka HC12 Aug 2025WA/100314/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WA No. 100314 of 2024 (S-RES), High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, decided 12.08.2025 (S. Sunil Dutt Yadav, J.; Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.) - Compassionate appointment claim rejected for staleness: alleged application of 06.11.2000 not traceable in Corporation records, representations only from 2016; appeal under S.4 Karnataka High Court Act dismissed relying on Government of India v. P. Venkatesh, Civil Appeal No.2425/2016.

What did the court decide?

It is the settled position of law that a claim for compassionate appointment ought to be made and pursued with due diligence; this Court relies on the Apex Court's observation in Government of India v. P. Venkatesh that staleness of the claim takes away the very basis of providing compassionate appointment. ¶43

Kalavati D/O Late Subbarao Tirumale Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant's claim for compassionate appointment - founded on an application allegedly filed on 06.11.2000 that is not available in the records of respondent No.3-Corporation, with representations commencing only from 2016 - warranted interference with the rejection by the Director, Directorate of Municipal Administration and with the learned Single Judge's order dated 27.05.2024 in W.P.No.103939/2022.

¶26

Court's answer

¶43

Ratio / Principle

Pursuant to the clarification sought by the Director, Directorate of Municipal Administration regarding the alleged application dated 06.11.2000, respondent No.3-Corporation verified its records (Annexure-M) and found no reference to the said application.

¶39

Key takeaways

Where there is no record of the application dated 06.11.2000 and subsequent correspondences were only after the year 2016, the petitioner having slept over her rights between 2000 and 2016, the claim for compassionate appointment ought not to be considered.ratio¶40
Taking note of the lack of diligence in pursuing the application for compassionate appointment, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Compassionate appointment - Delay and lack of diligence - Stale claim. The appellant, daughter of a late Second Divisional Assistant of Hubballi Dharwad Municipal Corporation, claimed compassionate appointment on the basis of an application allegedly filed on 06.11.2000; the application was not available in the Corporation's records (verified per Annexure-M) and her representations commenced only from 04.05.2016. The Director, Directorate of Municipal Administration rejected the claim by reasoned order dated 09.08.2018, which was upheld by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.103939/2022 (order dated 27.05.2024). The Division Bench held that a claim for compassionate appointment must be made and pursued with due diligence, relying on Government of India v. P. Venkatesh (Civil Appeal No.2425/2016) ('staleness of the claim took away very basis of providing compassionate appointment'); since there was no record of the 2000 application and correspondence began only after 2016, the claimant having slept over her rights between 2000 and 2016, the claim ought not to be considered. Writ appeal under S.4, Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 rejected.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10065-DB WA No. 100314 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO. 100314 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KALAVATI D/O. LATE SUBBARAO TIRUMALE, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. NEAR AMBA BHAVANI TEMPLE, JAI BHIM NAGAR, DHARWAD.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. S. G. KADADAKATTI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

¶14

THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, 9TH FLOOR, VISHWESHWARAYYA TOWER, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER, HUBBALLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580025.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. V. S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. GIRISH HULMANI, ADV. FOR R3)

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN W.P.103939/2022 ORDER DATED 27.05.2024 BY ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL AND ETC.

¶19

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTER, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10065-DB WA No. 100314 of 2024

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)

¶26

The appellant who was the petitioner in the writ proceedings has called in question the correctness of the order dated 27.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.103939/2022. The order in Writ Petition No.103939/2022 has rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on grounds that the application stated to have filed on 06.11.2000 by the petitioner was not available in the records of the respondent No.3-Hubballi Dharwad Municipal Corporation (for short, ‘Corporation’). The writ petition was rejected on certain other grounds as well.

¶27

The parties are referred to as per their rank in the writ petition for the sake of convenience.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10065-DB WA No. 100314 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

The brief facts relevant for the present purpose

¶31

are that the father of the petitioner was stated to be working as Second Divisional Assistant in respondent No.3-Corporation. It is stated that, upon his death while he was in service, the petitioner is stated to have filed an application on 06.11.2000 seeking for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, it is made out from the facts that the petitioner has been making representations and that such representations start from the representation dated 04.05.2016 onwards.

¶32

It is further stated that, in the year 2017, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking for appropriate direction as regards consideration of application made for compassionate appointment. Said writ petition in W.P.No.111012/2017 came to be disposed off on 07.03.2018. At appears that subsequent to disposal of the said writ petition, the Director, Directorate of Municipal Administration has rejected the claim of the petitioner by a reasoned order dated 09.08.2018. The said order was

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10065-DB WA No. 100314 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

challenged in the writ proceedings in W.P.No.103939/2022. The learned Single Judge by detailed order considering all contentions has recorded a specific finding that the claim of the petitioner that application was filed on 06.11.2000 seeking compassionate appointment was not available in the records of the authority. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the other representations filed only in the year 2016 and has not interfered with the decision of the authorities as regards the application filed seeking compassionate appointment after delay of 16 years. The contention of the petitioner that the delay on the part of the respondents was the cause for delay in approaching the Court was not accepted. The learned Single Judge has specifically recorded that the action of the petitioner appears to have been only after the year 2015 in addressing correspondence to the respondent No.3Corporation. Accordingly, the order of the Director,

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10065-DB WA No. 100314 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Directorate of Municipal Administration was not interfered and the writ petition was rejected.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention to the correspondence dated 21.05.2016 by respondent No.3-Corporation to the Director, Directorate of Municipal Administration and submits that in the said correspondence, there is a reference to the petitioner’s application dated 06.11.2000. However, it is to be noticed that the Director, Directorate of Municipal Administration has specifically sought for clarification regarding the alleged application of the petitioner dated 06.11.2000 and in terms of Annexure-M, it is clear that respondent No.3Corporation had verified records and observed that there was no reference to the said application. If that were to be so that there is no record for having given the application on 06.11.2000 and subsequent correspondences were only

¶40

after the year 2016, obviously, the petitioner having slept over his rights between 2000 and 2016, the claim for compassionate appointment ought not to be considered. It

¶41

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10065-DB WA No. 100314 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

is settled position of law that the claim for compassionate appointment ought to be made and pursued with due diligence. As observed by the Apex Court in the case of the GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS. P.VENKATESH in Civil Appeal No.2425/2016 “this staleness of the claim took away very basis of providing compassionate appointment.”

¶44

In the present case, taking note of the lack of diligence in pursuing the application for compassionate appointment, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is

¶45

rejected .

¶46

Sd/(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶47

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE

¶48

RH /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Kalavati D/O Late Subbarao Tirumale v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalavati D/O Late Subbarao Tirumale v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Bhimappa Avaradi Vs the State of Karnataka

Shobha W/O Ramesh Vernekar Vs Vijakumar a P

The Deputy Chief Engineer Vs the President

Shri.Channaveerappa S/O Ramappa Pujar Vs Smt.Saroja W/O Channaveerappa Pujar

Shainaz W/O. Khajasab Indikar, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ramappa S/O Yalagurdappa Hunnalli Vs the Management of Nwkrtc