Karnataka High Court
Smt Laxmi D/O. Late Nagappa Kittur vs The Registrar General on 21 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.103661 OF 2021(S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT LAXMI
D/O. LATE NAGAPPA KITTUR
W/O SHIVANAND MARIKATTI,
AGE 39 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. VIVEKANAND NAGAR,
COURT CIRCLES HUKKERI,
DISTRICT BELAGAVI,
NOW RESIDING AT PLOT NO. 16,
RENUKA NAGAR, KANABARGI ROAD,
BELAGAVI - 590016.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.H M DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
MANJANNA E
Location:
1. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
High Court of HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Karnataka
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2
3. THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
BELAGAVI, DISTRICT BELAGAVI - 590001.
4. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
DISTRICT COURT BELAGAVI,
DISTRICT BELAGAVI - 590001.
5. THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
HUKKERI COURT HUKKERI,
DISTRICT BELAGAVI-591309.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.B.V.VIDYULATHA AND SRI.T.M.NADAF,
ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER
NO.LCA-II.50/2007 DATED 05.05.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-R
AND LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER
NO.ADM/7579/2016 DATED 17.05.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-
S AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.02.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed assailing the
endorsement issued by respondent No.1 declining to
grant employment on compassionate grounds.
2. Petitioner's father namely Nagappa
Basavaneppa Kittur was appointed as an Attender and
was serving under respondent No.4. Petitioner's
father died in harness on 21.6.2005. Petitioner, a
married daughter submitted a representation
requesting to grant employment on compassionate
grounds. Her application was rejected on the ground
that there is no provision to consider married
daughter for providing appointment on compassionate
grounds.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1
to 5.
4. The issue relating to granting of
employment on compassionate grounds to married
daughter is no more res integra. The Division Bench
of this Court while considering an identical case has
declined to interfere with the order passed by the
learned Single Judge who had declined to issue a
mandamus taking cognizance of marital status of the
applicant.
5. It is pertinent to draw upon the judgment
of the division bench of this Court in the case of
Mrs. Megha.J .vs. Life Insurance Corporation of
India (LIC) and another [W.A.No.891/2023(S-
RES),DD.27.9.2023], which elucidates the legal
interpretation of dependency and the rationale behind
precluding married daughters from eligibility for
compassionate appointment. Para 4 of the judgment
reads as under:
"4. Learned Single Judge has rightly relied upon
the Apex Court decision in State of Maharashtra
vs. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate AIR 2022 SC 5176 to
the effect that a married daughter residing in the
matrimonial home ordinarily cannot be treated as
a dependent on her father. Our scriptures injunct
"bharta rakshati yavvane..." literally meaning that
it is the duty of husband to provide maintenance
to his dependent wife. That is how our legislations
too are structured e.g., Section 125 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (applicable to all
regardless of religions), Sections 24 & 25 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (applicable to Hindus, in
a broad sense of the term), Section 37 of the
Divorce Act, 1869 (applicable to Christians),
Section 40 of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act,
1936 (applicable to Parsis), Section 20 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005 (applicable to all persons regardless of
religion and marital status), Sections 36 & 37 of
the Special Marriage Act, 1954, The Muslim
Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act,
2019 (applicable to Muslims wives), etc., have
been structured. No binding rule or ruling that
guarantees right of maintenance to the married
daughter residing with the husband qua the
father, is brought to our notice."
The judgment emphasizes the duty of a husband to
provide maintenance to his wife and reaffirms the
principle that compassionate appointment is intended
to alleviate the immediate financial distress of the
deceased's family, rather than confer entitlements or
privileges based on marital status.
6. The petitioner's argument posits parity
between married/unmarried daughters and married
sons in the context of compassionate appointment
eligibility. However, this assertion overlooks the
fundamental distinction between inheritance rights
and compassionate appointment criteria. While the
principle of equality among daughters and sons may
find resonance in matters of inheritance or succession,
it does not translate directly to eligibility for
compassionate appointment. The principles governing
compassionate appointment eligibility pivot on
considerations of dependency, financial need, and the
humanitarian imperative to alleviate acute distress,
rather than notions of birthright or inheritance.
Therefore, the petitioner's plea for parity between
married/unmarried daughters and married sons in the
context of compassionate appointment lacks legal
merit and is not supported by the prevailing legal
framework.
7. Furthermore, the eligibility for
compassionate appointment is contingent upon a
demonstration of severe hardship and an inability to
maintain oneself or one's family in the absence of the
deceased. Importantly, the eligibility criteria for
compassionate appointment do not draw a distinction
between married/unmarried daughters and married
sons. Instead, the focus is on identifying individuals
who were dependent on the deceased for their day-to-
day expenses and who would consequently face
significant financial adversity in the absence of the
deceased's support. Therefore, the object of
compassionate appointment is firmly rooted in
addressing the immediate financial crisis faced by
families following the demise of a family member,
without conferring appointment as a matter of right or
inheritance. This principle transcends marital
distinctions and is guided by the overarching objective
of extending support to individuals who are genuinely
in need due to their dependency on the deceased for
day-to-day expenses.
8. The essence of compassionate appointment
lies in addressing the immediate financial distress
experienced by the family in the aftermath of the
employee's demise. The term "dependent" within the
context of compassionate appointment denotes family
members who were reliant on the deceased employee
for financial support. While compassionate
appointment aims to alleviate the economic burden on
such dependents, it does not extend to family
members who have since established independent
means of support or who no longer face financial
hardship.
9. The petitioner's father having passed away
in 2005 does not automatically entitle the petitioner to
compassionate appointment in 2024. The eligibility for
such appointment hinges upon the continued financial
need of the family and the absence of alternative
means of sustenance for the petitioner. While the
representation was indeed submitted promptly, the
significant delay in taking action or reviewing the
request has resulted in its validity and relevance being
compromised. The primary objective of compassionate
appointment is to address the immediate financial
constraints faced by the family following the death of
the government servant or employee. However, the
prolonged delay in addressing the petitioner's request
has allowed for a substantial amount of time to elapse
without providing the necessary assistance or relief to
the family.
10. During this extended period, the financial
circumstances and needs of the petitioner's family
may have undergone significant changes. The initial
urgency and immediacy of the financial constraints
experienced by the family may no longer be as
pressing or relevant after such a prolonged period.
Therefore, if the petitioner's family has been self-
sufficient and able to maintain themselves without
facing significant financial constraints since the demise
of the deceased employee, they may not be
considered eligible for compassionate appointment as
the primary objective of providing immediate financial
relief would not be applicable in the present case.
11. The petitioner does not possess eligibility
criteria. She has no legal right to seek appointment
on compassionate grounds. Respondents are not
under obligation to consider petitioner's
representation.
12. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Writ petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE
*alb/-
