Disposed

Smt. Sowjanya N S v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Feb 2026WP/22188/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition seeking compassionate appointment. The Court held that while the plea for mandamusto the Trial Court was not tenable, it directed the Trial Court to expedite adjudication and parties to cooperate for early disposal.

What did the court decide?

IA No.1/2026 allowed; writ petition disposed; parties directed to cooperate for early disposal of P & SC No.21/2023.

Smt. Sowjanya N S Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:8263 WP No. 22188 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 22188 OF 2025 (S-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SOWJANYA N.S. W/O LATE SANTHOSH J., AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, NO.158, 7^TH CROSS, 3^RD STAGE, NEAR CHAMUNDESHWARI TEMPLE, RAMABAINAGAR, MYSORE-570 008.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. N. KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, SHANTHI NAGARA, BENGALURU-560 027.

¶15

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MYSORE RURAL DIVISION, BANNIMANTAP, MYSORE-570 015.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:8263 WP No. 22188 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SMT. MANGALAGOWRAMMA W/O LATE JALENDRA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT WARD NO.2, KUMVEMPUNAGARA, K.R. NAGARA TOWN, MYSORE DISTRICT.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. M. RAJAKUMAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 )

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO: DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO APPOINT THE PETITIONER ON COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS FORTHWITH BY CONSIDERING HER APPLICATION DATED 02.01.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-J; AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds by considering her application dated 02.01.2023.

¶27

An application (I.A.No.1/2026) is also filed to incorporate one more prayer seeking direction to the VI

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:8263 WP No. 22188 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru, where the proceeding is pending in P & SC No.21/2023 to grant succession certificate.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that writ petition is originally filed seeking writ of mandamus to consider the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment on the ground that her husband who was working in KSRTC has expired.

¶33

It is the contention that the application seeking compassionate appointment is pending for more than three years. It is also submitted that the respondent - Corporation has issued an endorsement to the petitioner to produce a succession certificate declaring petitioner's status as the wife of deceased - J. Santhosh.

¶34

It is further submitted that P & SC No.21/2023 is pending consideration before the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru. In the said proceeding, statement of objection is filed by the mother of the deceased and petitioner's status as wife of Santhosh is admitted. It is further stated that since the respondent - Corporation has issued an endorsement vide Annexure - D to obtain succession certificate, the application

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:8263 WP No. 22188 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

seeking appointment on compassionate ground is not considered on merit. Under these circumstances, it is submitted that a direction is to be issued to both the parties for cooperating with the Court for early disposal of the aforementioned proceeding.

¶39

Learned counsel for the respondent - Corporation would submit that, since the application for appointment on compassionate ground is filed along with a prayer to confer all monetary benefits on the petitioner, the Corporation is justified in issuing an endorsement insisting for a succession certificate.

¶40

The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.

¶41

Since the petitioner is claiming a compassionate appointment and also the disbursement of monetary benefits in her favour, the respondent - Corporation is justified in issuing an endorsement insisting for a succession certificate and accordingly, the petition is filed before the Trial Court.

¶42

It is noticed that the pleadings are complete. Though the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus to the Trial Court to dispose of the matter is not tenable, considering the

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:8263 WP No. 22188 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

fact that the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment is pending consideration since last three years and now same has to be considered in accordance with law, the Court can only request the Trial Court to expedite the adjudication and both the parties are directed to co-operate for early disposal of the proceeding before the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru.

¶46

It is made clear that the Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the claim of the petitioner or the contesting respondents before the Trial Court.

¶47

With these observations, I.A.No.1/2026 for

¶48

amendment is allowed and the writ petition is disposed of.

¶49

The parties in P & SC No.21/2023 pending on the file of the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru shall co-operate for early disposal.

¶50

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶51

PMR

¶52

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Smt. Sowjanya N S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sowjanya N S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ch. Ramachandri Vs the Central Silk Board

Shiv Singh Kandari Vs the Central Silk Board

Sri. Ramesh Lal Vs Central Silk Board

Mariswamy Gowda B G., Vs the Divisional Controller

Jayaramappa Vs the Divisional Controller

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri M P Nagaprasad