Sri.G. Guruprasad Vs the State of Karnataka

THE CHIEF ENGINEER, COMMUNICATION AND CONSTRUCT (SOUTH), KARNATAKA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU DIVISION, BENGALURU, PWD OFFICE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, NEAR K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:2163-DB WP No. 13868 of 2023

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU DIVISION, BENGALURU, PWD OFFICE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, NEAR K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING QUASH/ SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.05.2023 IN A.No4800/2022 PASSED BY THE KSAT AT BENGALURU, THE COPY AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

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

¶29

The petitioner aggrieved by order dated 19.05.2023 in Application No.4800/2022 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru¹ rejecting his claim for compassionate appointment, is before this Court in this writ

¶30

petition.

¶31

1 the Tribunal

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:2163-DB WP No. 13868 of 2023

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner was working as Assistant Executive Engineer (AEE) in Karnataka Public Works Department and he died while in service on 28.12.2019. As on the date of death of petitioner's father, the petitioner was a minor, and he attained majority on 30.11.2021. The petitioner, on attaining the age of majority, filed an application for compassionate appointment on 28.12.2021. His application for compassionate appointment was rejected under Endorsement dated 19.07.2022 (AnnexureZ), holding that the application of the petitioner is not in terms of pre amended Rule 5 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 (for short '1996 Rules'), as the petitioner had not attained majority within one year from the date of death of his father and holding that the petitioner cannot avail the benefit of amendment made to Rule 5 of the 1996 Rules.

¶36

2.1 Questioning the said endorsement, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in the above stated Application No.4800/2022. The Tribunal under impugned order dismissed the application holding that the amendment brought under

¶37

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:2163-DB WP No. 13868 of 2023

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Notification dated 09.04.2021 would have no application to the facts of the present case and the amended Rule would have only prospective effect and not retrospective effect. Questioning the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.

¶40

Heard learned counsel Sri.Rangaramu V., for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri. V. Shivareddy, for the respondents and perused the entire writ petition papers.

¶41

Learned counsel Sri.Rangaramu V., for the petitioner would submit that the appointment on compassionate grounds is governed by 1996 Rules and Rule 5 of 1996 Rules was amended by Notification dated 09.04.2021. In terms of the amendment, in case of a minor, it is amended to the effect that he must have attained the age of 18 years within two years from the date of death of the Government servant and he must make an application within two year thereafter.

¶42

4.1 Placing reliance on the said amendment, learned

¶43

counsel for the petitioner submits that the application of the

¶44

5 -

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:2163-DB WP No. 13868 of 2023

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds ought to have been considered under the amended provision. He submits that the petitioner attained majority on 30.11.2021 and immediately thereafter, the petitioner made an application. Therefore, his case ought to have been considered for compassionate appointment and ought to have been provided an appointment.

¶48

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri. V. Shivareddy, for respondents would submit that the petitioner has not attained the age of majority within time in terms of pre-amended Rules and as such, his right for consideration of his case for compassionate appointment extinguished as on the date of amendment by way of Notification dated 09.04.2021. Thus, he would support the order passed by the Tribunal and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶49

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point that requires our consideration is as to whether the impugned

¶50

6 -

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:2163-DB WP No. 13868 of 2023

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

order passed by the Tribunal as well as the Endorsement dated 19.07.2022 requires interference at the hands of this Court.

¶54

Answer to the above point would be negative for the following reasons:

¶55

7.1 In the State of Karnataka, appointment on compassionate grounds is governed by 1996 Rules. Rule 3 of the 1996 Rules, makes it clear that appointment on compassionate ground shall not be claimed as a matter of right and shall not be given as a matter of course. Rule 5, which stood on the date of death of father of the petitioner required that a minor must have attained the age of 18 years within one year from the date of death of the Government servant and he must have made an application within one year thereafter. In terms of the said Rule, the petitioner ought to have attained majority within 27.12.2020 and ought to have made an application within one year thereafter. However, the petitioner has not attained majority within 27.12.2020 and he had attained majority only on 30.11.2021 and submitted application thereafter.

¶56

7 -

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:2163-DB WP No. 13868 of 2023

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

7.2 Admittedly, under Notification dated 09.04.2021,

¶60

proviso to Rule 5 was amended to say that in the case of minor, he must have attained the age of 18 years within two years from the date of the death of Government servant and he must make an application within two years thereafter. The amended proviso would not come to the aid of the petitioner since his right to make an application for compassionate ground appointment extinguished by the time the amended proviso was substituted. The Tribunal has rightly recorded its reason at paragraph No.6 of its order.

¶61

We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected .

¶62

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶63

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶64

VBS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Sri.G. Guruprasad v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.G. Guruprasad v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs Shri Ramesh Ramachandra Rao

Sri Swamy Vs Nagaraju P

Madhu Souharda Pathina Sahakari Niyamitha Vs the Income Tax Officer

Sri. Anilkumar, Vs the State of Karnataka

Cholamandalam M S General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt Nagamma

The Karnataka Public Service Commission Vs Sri. Shridhara M.C.