[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Obalesh S/O Thimmappa vs Commissioner on 2 December, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16910
WP No. 107178 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 107178 OF 2017 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
OBALESH S/O THIMMAPPA,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: POURA KARMIKA,
R/O: RAMPURAM COLONY, BALLARI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT.SUNITHA P.KALASOOR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. COMMISSIONER,
BELLARY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
BALLARI.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE COMPOUND, BALLARI.
3. DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL DEPARTMENT,
9TH FLOOR, VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWERS,
Digitally signed by
VISHAL NINGAPPA DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU.
PATTIHAL
Location: High
... RESPONDENTS
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench,
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R2 & R3;
Dharwad SRI. AMAN DHEIYANNAVAR
FOR SRI. C V ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO
THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE
PETITIONER IN ACCORDANCE WTH THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.61589/2011 DATED:
9.06.2013 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRL. HEARING B-GROUP, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16910
WP No. 107178 of 2017
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question
the rejection of the application of the petitioner seeking
appointment on compassionate grounds in the respondent Ballari
Municipal Corporation.
2. Heard Smt. Sunitha P.Kalasoor, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Girija S.Hiremath, learned
HCGP appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3; and Sri. Aman
Dhariyannavar for Shri C.V. Angadi, learned counsel appearing
for respondent No.1.
3. The father of the petitioner was an employee working
in the Ballari City Corporation and dies in harness 50 years ago
on 06.09.1975. The petitioner who is working as a Poura
Karmika under the same Corporation on contract basis is said to
have submitted an application in the year 1991. The said
application did not merit consideration for long had approached
this Court in Writ Petition No.61589 of 2011, disposed on 19th
June 20163, which comes to be disposed by the Co-ordinate
Bench by the following order.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16910
HC-KAR
"6. No doubt it is true that, as on the said date
nearly 10 years had elapsed. Therefore, at that juncture,
if the 1st respondent was issuing a communication to say
that such letter had not been received, the fact that about
10 years having been elapsed and therefore there being
misplacement of such representation also cannot be ruled
out. Hence, all that is necessary to be noticed is the fact
that the father of the petitioner had died on 06.09.1975 in
harness is not in dispute. The fact that the petitioner
attained the age of majority on 06.05.1990 based on the
date of birth i.e., 06.09.1972 also cannot be in dispute. If
that be the position and when it is contended that more
than a decade back an application was made on
08.03.1991 and a copy is relied on upon at Annexure-B,
which was also referred by the Deputy Commissioner, it
would be appropriate for the 1st respondent to take into
consideration the said application and with reference to
the regulations find out as to whether the petitioner would
be entitled to the appointment compassionate grounds.
To enable such consideration, the petitioner shall now file
one more copy of the application dated 08.03.1991 at
Annexure-B with the 1st respondent within three weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The 1st
respondent shall thereafter take into consideration the
said application and take a decision in the matter in
accordance with law.
In terms of the above, petition stands disposed of"
4. A direction was issued to the respondent to consider
the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate
grounds. Three years later comes the impugned endorsement
rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the score that the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16910
HC-KAR
petitioner was at that point in time 43 years. Today the
petitioner is 51 years.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner has a right to get appointment on
compassionate grounds in the light of the fact that his father was
working as a permanent employee in the first respondent
Corporation and it is an admitted fact that he has died in harness
and therefore, the learned counsel submits a direction be issued
to grant the petitioner an appointment on compassionate
grounds.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.1 submits that they have in fact recommended
the case of the petitioner for the State to take a decision in the
matter. The state has declined to accept it.
7. Learned counsel HCGP would refute the submission
of the counsel for the petitioner in contending that the father of
the petitioner died not too long ago but just 50 years ago and
the compassionate appointment is now being sought at the
hands of this Court in the year 2025.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16910
HC-KAR
8. Learned counsel further submits that as on the date
of filing of the petition the petitioner was 43 years and today is
51 years. Therefore, compassionate appointment cannot be
granted at this stage.
9. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and perused the records.
10. The afore-narrated facts, dates link in the chain of
events are not in dispute. They are all a matter of record. The
father of the petitioner dies in harness on 06.09.1975. Today it is
50 years and 4 months. The petitioner in the year 1991 seeks
appointment on compassionate grounds, keeps quiet for 10
years, works in the same department as a Poura Karmika on
contract basis, then approaches this Court in 2011, seeking
consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate
grounds. The Co-ordinate Bench grants the aforesaid order. The
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court has
recognised the right of the petitioner seeking appointment on
compassionate grounds. The said submission of the learned
counsel does not merit any acceptance. This Court only directed
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16910
HC-KAR
consideration of the representation of the petitioner for
appointment on compassionate grounds. Whether the petitioner
was over-aged, whether the petitioner is over-aged today is not
the question. The compassionate appointment is if today is
granted it would become a mockery, as the father of the
petitioner has died 50 years ago in 1975 and for a death that has
happened 50 years ago, compassionate appointment if now
directed at this stage would run completely foul of the judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF J&K Vs. SAJAD
AHMED MIR1 , wherein it is held as follows:
"8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The
learned counsel for the State submitted that the Division
Bench has committed clear error of law in allowing the
letters patent appeal and setting aside the order passed
by the learned Single Judge. He submitted that the father
of the applicant died in 1987 and an application was made
for the first time in 1991. Even on that day, the applicant
was minor and was not eligible to be appointed.
Moreover, the authorities considered the case of the
applicant and in March 1996, the claim of the applicant
was rejected. The said fact was communicated not
only to the Department but also to the applicant
and the applicant was aware of such decision. He,
however, kept silence and did nothing, nor did he
challenge the said decision at any time. After about
three years, in 1999, when again there was a
(2006) 5 SCC 766
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16910
HC-KAR
departmental communication, the applicant woke
up and approached the Court and challenged the
said decision. Thus, there was gross delay and
laches on the part of the applicant in approaching
the Court and invoking the writ jurisdiction of the
High Court. The learned Single Judge was,
therefore, wholly justified in dismissing the
petition. It was also argued by the learned counsel
that the sole object of offering compassionate
appointment is to ensure that the family of the
employee who dies in harness does not suffer.
When the father of the applicant died in 1987 and
the applicant approached the Court in 1999, more
than a decade had passed. Moreover, when the
Division Bench heard the letters patent appeal,
more than fifteen years were over and the said fact
ought to have been taken into account by the
Division Bench and it ought not to have reversed
the decision of the learned Single Judge. He,
therefore, submitted that the appeal deserves to be
allowed by setting aside the order passed by the
Division Bench restoring the order of the learned
Single Judge.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the
other hand, supported the order passed by the Division
Bench. He stated that discretion has been exercised by
the Division Bench keeping in view the principles of
justice, equity and good conscience. The Bench was fully
justified in observing that when "compassion" was sought,
the approach of the Court would be liberal and pragmatic
rather than rigid and pedantic. The approach adopted by
the Division Bench in showing sympathy cannot be faulted
with and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16910
HC-KAR
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties, in our opinion, the appeal should be allowed.
Certain facts are not in dispute. The father of the
applicant who was in service, died in harness in March
1987 and for the first time, the application was made by
the applicant after more than four years i.e. in September
1991. The family thus survived for more than four
years after the death of the applicant's father. Even
at that time, the applicant, under the relevant
guidelines, could not have been appointed and
hence relaxation was prayed. It is no doubt true
that the case of the applicant was favourably
considered by the departments and
recommendation was made, but it is also a fact
which has come on record that in March 1996, a
decision was taken by the authorities not to give
appointment to the applicant on compassionate
ground. From the affidavit-in-reply filed by the
authorities in the High Court as also from the
finding of the learned Single Judge, it is clear that
the applicant had knowledge about rejection of his
application in 1996 itself. Nothing was done by the
applicant against the said decision. Considerable
period elapsed and only in 1999, when there was
some inter-departmental communication and the
Administrative Officer informed the Chief Engineer
vide a letter dated 8-6-1999 that the applicant
could not be appointed on compassionate ground
that the applicant woke up and filed a writ petition
in the High Court. It is also pertinent to note that
the letter of 1999 itself recites that the case of the
applicant for compassionate appointment was
considered and the prayer had already been turned
down by the Administrative Department and the
said fact had been communicated to the office of
the Chief Engineer. A copy of the said letter was
also annexed to the letter of 1999. In our opinion,
therefore, the learned Single Judge was right in
dismissing the petition on the ground of delay and
laches by holding that the applicant had not done
anything for a considerable period after March 1996
when his claim was rejected even though he was
informed about the decision and was very much
aware of it. The Division Bench, in our view, was
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16910
HC-KAR
not justified in setting aside the said order and in
directing the authorities to consider the case of the
applicant for compassionate appointment and by
giving directions to give other benefits.
11. We may also observe that when the Division
Bench of the High Court was considering the case of the
applicant holding that he had sought "compassion", the
Bench ought to have considered the larger issue as well
and it is that such an appointment is an exception to the
general rule. Normally, an employment in the
Government or other public sectors should be open
to all eligible candidates who can come forward to
apply and compete with each other. It is in
consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On
the basis of competitive merits, an appointment
should be made to public office. This general rule
should not be departed from except where
compelling circumstances demand, such as, death
of the sole breadwinner and likelihood of the family
suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved
that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the
family survived and substantial period is over, there
is no necessity to say "goodbye" to the normal rule
of appointment and to show favour to one at the
cost of the interests of several others ignoring the
mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.
12. In State of Haryana v. Rani Devi [(1996) 5
SCC 308 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1162 : AIR 1996 SC 2445] it
was held that the claim of the applicant for appointment
on compassionate ground is based on the premise that he
was dependent on the deceased employee. Strictly this
claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or
16 of the Constitution. However, such claim is considered
reasonable as also allowable on the basis of sudden crisis
occurring in the family of the employee who had served
the State and died while in service. That is why it is
necessary for the authorities to frame rules, regulations
or to issue such administrative instructions which can
stand the test of Articles 14 and 16. Appointment on
compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of
right.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16910
HC-KAR
13. In LIC of India v. Asha Ramchhandra
Ambekar [(1994) 2 SCC 718 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 737 :
(1994) 27 ATC 174] it was indicated that the High Courts
and the Administrative Tribunals cannot confer
benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to
make appointments on compassionate grounds when the
regulations framed in respect thereof do not cover and
contemplate such appointments.
14. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of
Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930 :
(1994) 27 ATC 537] it was ruled that public service
appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open
invitation of applications and on merits. The appointment
on compassionate ground cannot be a source of
recruitment. It is merely an exception to the requirement
of law keeping in view the fact of the death of the
employee while in service leaving his family without any
means of livelihood. In such cases, the object is to enable
the family to get over sudden financial crisis. Such
appointments on compassionate ground, therefore, have
to be made in accordance with the rules, regulations or
administrative instructions taking into consideration the
financial condition of the family of the deceased. This
favourable treatment to the dependant of the deceased
employee must have clear nexus with the object sought
to be achieved thereby i.e. relief against destitution. At
the same time, however, it should not be forgotten that
as against the destitute family of the deceased, there are
millions and millions of other families which are equally, if
not more, destitute. The exception to the rule made in
favour of the family of the deceased employee is in
consideration of the services rendered by him and the
legitimate expectation, and the change in the status and
affairs of the family engendered by the erstwhile
employment, which are suddenly upturned.
15. In Sushma Gosain v. Union of India [(1989)
4 SCC 468 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 662 : (1989) 11 ATC
878] it was observed that in the claims of
appointment on compassionate grounds, there
should be no delay in appointment. The purpose of
providing appointment on compassionate ground is
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16910
HC-KAR
to mitigate the hardship due to the death of the
breadwinner in the family. Such appointments
should, therefore, be provided immediately to
redeem the family in distress.
16. Recently, in Commr. of Public Instructions v. K.R.
Vishwanath [(2005) 7 SCC 206 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 927] ,
one of us (Pasayat, J.) had an occasion to consider the
above decisions and the principles laid down therein have
been reiterated.
17. In the case on hand, the father of the
applicant died in March 1987. The application was
made by the applicant after four-and-a-half years in
September 1991 which was rejected in March 1996.
The writ petition was filed in June 1999 which was
dismissed by the learned Single Judge in July 2000.
When the Division Bench decided the matter, more
than fifteen years had passed from the date of the
death of the father of the applicant. The said fact
was indeed a relevant and material fact which went
to show that the family survived in spite of the
death of the employee. Moreover, in our opinion,
the learned Single Judge was also right in holding
that though the order was passed in 1996, it was
not challenged by the applicant immediately. He
took chance of challenging the order in 1999 when
there was inter-departmental communication in
1999. The Division Bench, in our view, hence ought
not to have allowed the appeal."
(Emphasis supplied)
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16910
HC-KAR
11. In the light of the aforesaid circumstance and the
compassionate appointment being sought after 50 years of the
death, the petition for lacking in merit stands rejected.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
VNP / CT: ASC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3
