Dismissed¶65

Smt Vanitha N v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Jul 2025WP/23076/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment — married daughter — Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Amendment) Rules, 1996, introduced by notification dated 09.04.2021 — claim made over seven years after the employee's death in service (08.05.2014) — sense of immediacy lost — compassionate appointment not a matter of right — State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari, (2025) 5 SCC 712 applied — KSAT order upheld — writ petition under Article 226 (S-KSAT) rejected.

What did the court decide?

Compassionate appointment under the 1996 Rules cannot be claimed as a matter of right. ¶43

Smt Vanitha N Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶65

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment, made more than seven years after her father's death in service, could be entertained although the sense of immediacy underlying such appointment had been lost. +1 more

¶46

Court's answer

Compassionate appointment under the 1996 Rules cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

The purpose and object of compassionate appointment is to overcome the financial difficulty faced by the dependents of the deceased as on the date of death of the Government servant; consequently, the petitioner, after a lapse of more than seven years, cannot seek compassionate appointment.

¶46

Key takeaways

Applying State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari, (2025) 5 SCC 712, the Court held that in the instant case the sense of immediacy in the matter of compassionate appointment has been lost, and therefore the delayed claim cannot be entertained.ratio¶63
There is no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal; the writ petition stands rejected.ratio¶65

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka (Division Bench; oral order per S.G. Pandit, J.). The petitioner, daughter of a Police Assistant Sub-Inspector who died in service on 08.05.2014, was refused compassionate appointment by endorsement dated 09.12.2014 on the ground that a married daughter was not entitled. After the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Amendment) Rules were introduced by notification dated 09.04.2021 extending the scheme to married daughters, she renewed her request in 2022; it was rejected by endorsement dated 25.07.2022, and the Tribunal (Application No.395/2023, order dated 17.07.2023) upheld the rejection, holding the amendment prospective. The High Court, applying State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari, (2025) 5 SCC 712, held that compassionate appointment under the 1996 Rules is not a matter of right; its object is to overcome the financial difficulty faced by the dependents as on the date of death of the Government servant, and where, as here, more than seven years have elapsed, the sense of immediacy is lost and the claim cannot be entertained. Finding no ground to interfere with the Tribunal's order, the Court rejected the writ petition. The Court rested its dismissal on the delay/immediacy ground and expressed no view on whether the 2021 amendment operates retrospectively.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:28833-DB WP No. 23076 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 23076 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SMT. VANITHA N D/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH. H, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, BASAVA SADANA, NO.28, NEAR S.R.S. BAKERY MARALUR DINNE MAIN ROAD, SARASWATHIPURAM II STAGE, TUMKUR-572 105.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. SHAILENDRA M. R., ADV.)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPT. OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶17

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KARNATAKA, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶18

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU - 572 101.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. B SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA)

¶21

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:28833-DB WP No. 23076 of 2024

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1) SET ASIDE BY THE ISSUE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THE CASE MAY BE, SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER, DATED 17.07.2023 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPLICATION NO. 395/2023 (ANNEXURE-A) AND TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION AND TO GRANT ALL RELIEFS SOUGHT FOR BY THE PETITIONER IN THE SAID APPLICATION AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶28

This writ petition is directed against the order dated

¶29

17.07.2023 in Application No.395/2023 passed by the

¶30

Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), rejecting the petitioner’s challenge to the endorsement dated 25.07.2022 wherein her request for compassionate appointment was rejected.

¶31

Heard learned counsel Sri.M.R.Sahilendra for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Smt.B.Sukanya Baliga for the respondents. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:28833-DB WP No. 23076 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

It is claimed that the petitioner’s father was

¶35

working as an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Police Department and died while in service on 08.05.2014. It is

¶36

stated that the petitioner had given representation/application seeking compassionate

¶37

appointment and that the same was rejected under endorsement dated 09.12.2014 on the ground that a married daughter would not be entitled for compassionate appointment. Having kept quiet for more than seven years, the petitioner is said to have made one more representation in the year 2022, seeking compassionate appointment by placing reliance on the amended Rules notified by notification dated 09.04.2021. The said request was also rejected under endorsement dated 25.07.2022 (Annexure-A2). Questioning the said endorsement, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in Application No.395/2023. The Tribunal, under the impugned order rejected the said application holding that the amended

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:28833-DB WP No. 23076 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

provisions would have prospective effect, but not retrospective effect.

¶42

Be that as it may, the petitioner’s request for compassionate appointment was initially rejected vide endorsement dated 09.12.2014. Subsequent to rejection of the petitioner’s request for compassionate appointment, in the year 2021 vide notification dated 09.04.2021, the compassionate appointment Rules i.e., Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Amendment) Rules, 1996 was introduced making provisions for compassionate appointment to the married daughters also. Hence, the petitioner is said to have made one more representation seeking compassionate appointment. The Tribunal rightly rejected the petitioner’s challenge to the endorsement dated 25.07.2022 (Annexure-A2).

¶43

The compassionate appointment under the 1996 Rules cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:28833-DB WP No. 23076 of 2024

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

purpose and object of providing compassionate appointment is to overcome financial difficulty faced by the dependents of a deceased as on the date of death of the said Government servant. In the instant case, the petitioner, after a lapse of more than seven years, cannot seek compassionate appointment.

¶47

The Hon'ble Apex Court, in STATE OF WEST

¶48

BENGAL v/s DEBABRATA TIWARI AND OTHERS

¶49

reported in (2025) 5 SCC 712 was considering the question as to whether a direction could be issued to consider the application for compassionate appointment after several years of making application. While answering the said question, the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraphs 33, 34 and 35, held as follows:

¶50

“ 33. The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of the breadearner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:28833-DB WP No. 23076 of 2024

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be in a position to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Having regard to such an object, it would be of no avail to grant compassionate appointment to the dependants of the deceased employee, after the crisis which arose on account of death of a breadwinner, has been overcome. Thus, there is also a compelling need to act with a sense of immediacy in matters concerning compassionate appointment because on failure to do so, the object of the scheme of compassionate appointment would be frustrated. Where a long lapse of time has occurred since the date of death of the deceased employee, the sense of immediacy for seeking compassionate appointment would cease to exist and thus lose its significance and this would be a relevant circumstance which must weigh with the authorities in determining as to whether a case for the grant of compassionate appointment has been made out for consideration.

¶54

34. As noted above, the sine qua non for entertaining a claim for compassionate appointment is that the family of the deceased employee would be unable to make two ends meet without one of the dependants of the

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:28833-DB WP No. 23076 of 2024

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

deceased employee being employed on compassionate grounds. The financial condition of the family of the deceased, at the time of the death of the deceased, is the primary consideration that ought to guide the authorities' decision in the matter.

¶58

35. Considering the second question referred to above, in the first instance, regarding whether applications for compassionate appointment could be considered after a delay of several years, we are of the view that, in a case where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the part of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. Further, the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased, may have changed, for the better, since the time of the death of the government employee. In such circumstances, courts or other relevant authorities are to be guided by the fact that for such prolonged period of delay, the family of the deceased was able to sustain themselves, most probably by availing gainful employment from some other source. Granting compassionate appointment in such a case, as noted by this Court in Hakim Singh [Haryana SEB v. Hakim Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 85 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 31] would amount to treating a claim for

¶59

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:28833-DB WP No. 23076 of 2024

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession which is contrary to the Constitution. Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependants of the deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the government employee.”

¶62

In the instant case also, the sense of immediacy in the

¶63

matter of compassionate appointment has been lost.

¶64

7. There is no ground to interfere with the

¶65

impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected.

¶66

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶67

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE