(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner is in-person. She is at the doors
2. Facts adumbrated, are as follows:
3. The petitioner then submits another representation
terms of the scheme, she was entitled as well. This was
not considered. The petitioner approaches this Court in
representation submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner
therefore, appointment cannot be offered. The petitioner
4. Heard Smt. Veena, the petitioner in-person and
5. The petitioner in-person submits that the application
as she gets married only in the year 2012. The father of
compassionate grounds. She would submit that it is
6. The learned counsel Sri.Vishwanth Hegde
cannot be considered. He would further submit contend
appointment that the petitioner is seeking. He seeks
dismissal of the petition.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
8. The afore-narrated facts, link in the chain of
events and the dates are not in dispute. The father of the
dies in harness, after working for close to 32 years. After
compassionate grounds. The representation is dated
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ
«µÀAiÀÄ:- C£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¨ÁåAQ£À ¸ÉêÉUÉ
vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîªÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2342
F ªÉÄð£À «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ £Á£ÀÄ ±ÁAvÁ ªÉAPÀmÉñÀ ±ÉÃmï
¸Á|| PÁ£À¸ÀÆgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä°è «£ÀAw¹PÉƼÀÄîªÅÀ zÉãÉAzÀgÉ, £À£ßÀ ¥ÀwAiÀĪÀgÁzÀ ²æÃ.
ªÉAPÀmÉñÀ ¸ÀĨÁåAiÀÄ ±ÉÃmï EªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¨ÁåAQ£À°è ¸ÉêÉAiÀÄ°èzÁÝUÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:
20/10/2007 gÀAzÀÄ zÉʪÁ¢üãÀgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. PÀÄlÄA§zÀ J¯Áè dªÁ¨ÁÝjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
£À£Àß ¥ÀwAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÄÀ Ý FUÀ £ÀªÄÀ ä PÀÄlÄA§zÀ°è PÀÄlÄA§
¤ªÀð»¸ÀĪÀ ºÁUÀÆ zÀÄrAiÀÄĪÀ d£ÀgÄÀ AiÀiÁgÀÄ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß
ªÀÄPÀ̼À ¤ªÀðºÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÁªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÁVzÀÄÝ fêÀ£À £ÀqɸÀĪÀÅzÀÄ
vÀÄA¨Á PÀµÀÖPÀgÀªÁVzÉ.
F »£À߯ÉAiÀÄ°è £À£ßÀ ¥ÀwAiÀĪÀgÀ CPÁ°PÀ ªÀÄgÀtzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÀªÀÄä
PÀÄlÄA§ªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð»¸À¨ÉÃPÁVzÀÝjAzÀ £À£ßÀ ¥ÀwAiÀĪÀgÄÀ vÀªÀÄä ¨ÁåAQ£À°è 35
ªÀµÀðUÀ½VAvÀ®Ä ºÉaÑ£À ¥ÁæªÀiÁtÂPÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¤µÉ×AiÀÄ ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ vÀªÄÀ UÉ
w½zÀÄ EzÉ. PÁgÀt zÀAiÀiÁ¼ÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ vÁªÀÅ £ÀªÄÀ ä PÀÄlÄA§ªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀåªÀºÀj¸À®Ä
C£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ vÀªÄÀ ä ¨ÁåAQ£À°è ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸À°è¸À®Ä
CªÀPÁ±À ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÁV vÀªÄÀ ä°è PÀ¼ÀPÀ½AiÀÄ «£ÀAw.
£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ J¸ï.J¸ï.J¯ï.¹. ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ°è C£ÀÄßwÛÃtð¼ÁV
ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄà EgÀÄvÁÛ¼É. PÁgÀt £À£ßÀ ¥ÀwAiÀĪÀgÀ §zÀ°UÉ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À
«zÁåºÀðvÉUÉ C£ÀÄUÀÄtªÁV ¨ÁåAQ£À ¸ÉêÉUÉ vÉUÉzÄÀ PÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÁV vÀªÀÄä°è
¥Áæyð¸ÀÄvÉÛãÉ."
(Emphasis added)
The mother pleads that the daughter be given
employment on compassionate grounds as she was
qualified to hold the post of an attender in the Bank, no
reply comes out to the representation. For the next
fourteen years, the mother and the petitioner submit
plethora of representations i.e., on 26.12.2007,
25.02.2008, 04.06.2009 and 09.06.2010, no reply comes
about to the aforesaid four representations, which were all
seeking employment on compassionate grounds.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2342
9. The age of the petitioner advances, as the time
and age, will wait for none. The petitioner then gets
married in the year 2012, but the destitute condition of
the family continues as they could not even live on hand-
to-mouth basis. The petitioner approaches the bank
seeking employment, which the bank appears to have
sympathetically considered and granted employment on
contract basis, which is purely temporary and can be
terminated at any time. Agreement to that effect was also
entered into. The conditions in the agreement are as
follows:
"ಈ ಾ ಾ ಕ ೌಕರಳ ಾಂ ನ ೇ ೆ ಸ ಸು ಾಗ ಾ ಂಕು
ಸೂ ದಂ ೆ ನಗದು ಭದ ೆ ಪತ ಗಳ , ಬಂ"ಾರ #ೕ ೆಗಳ $ಾಗೂ
ಮಹತ'ದ ವಸು)ಗಳ , *ಲುಗಳ , ವ"ೈ-ೆಗ.ೆ/ ಂ0"ೆ ವ ವಹ1ಸ ೇ2ಾಗುತ)3ೆ.
2ಾರಣ, ಈ ಕ-ಾರು ಪತ ವ5 ಈ 2ೆಳ#ನಂ ೆ ಾ6 ಆಗುತ)3ೆ.
1. ಈ ಾ ಾ ಕ ೌಕರಳ ಾಂ ನ ಾ ಾ ಕ ೇ ಾವ8ಯ
:ಾ;ೕಲ.ಾ#, <=ಾ' ಾಹ> ೆ?ಂದ $ಾಗೂ @ಾ AಾBಕ ೆ?ಂದ ತನ"ೆ
ವ 2ೆಲಸಗಳನುC Aಾಡ ೇ2ಾ#0Eರುತ)3ೆ. ಅಲ3ೇ ಾಂ ನ
GಯAಾವHಗಳನುC (2ಾಲ2ಾಲ2ೆ ಬದIಾದಂ ೆ) @ಾ 2ೆಲಸ
Gವ>Jಸ ೇ2ಾಗುತ)3ೆ. ಈ ಾ ಾ ಕ ೌಕರಳ ತನC ಾ ಾ ಕ
ೇ ಾವ8ಯ ತGCಂದ ಜರು#ದ ಅಪ-ಾ ತಪ-ಾ, Gಲ>Lಷತನ, ಹಣದ
ದುರುಪNೕಗ ಅಥ ಾ ಇ ಾCವ53ೇ ಅವ ವ$ಾರ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಾ ಂ "ೆ
ಸಂಬಂ8 ದ ಲು2ಾRನನುC ಭರ@ಾ? AಾS2ೊಡಲು ಬದTHರು ಾ). ೆ,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2342
2. ಈ ಾ ಾ ಕ ೌಕರಳ ೇ ಾವ8ಯ ಅಪ-ಾ ತಪ-ಾ, Gಲ>Uತನ, ಹಣದ
ದುರುಪNೕಗ ಅಥ ಾ ಇ ಾCವ53ೇ ಅವ ವ$ಾರ0ಂದ ಾ ಂ "ೆ ಉಂಟುAಾSದ
ಲು2ಾRನನುC :ಾವ53ೇ 2ಾನೂ ಾತXಕ ೊಂದ-ೆ?ಲ3ೇ ತನC ೇ ಾ
ೌಲಭ ಗಳ ಮು1 ಾಯ AಾS2ೊಳ Yವ ಬ"ೆZ $ಾಗೂ 2ೊರ ೆ ಆಗುವ ರಕಂನುC
ತGCಂದ ವಸೂ ಪ[ೆಯುವ ಅ82ಾರ ಾ ಂ "ೆ ಈ ಮೂಲಕ GೕSದುE ಇ3ೆ.
ಈ 2ೆಳ#ನ ಾ63ಾರರ ಸಮUನು ಉಭಯತರರು ಈ 0ನ 0 ಾಂಕ : 25-
02-2021 ರಂದು ಕ-ಾರು ಪತ 2ೆ ಒ]^ ಸJ AಾS0Eರುತ)3ೆ.
_ದಲ ೇ @ಾ`> : 2ೆ.S. . . ಾ ಂL ., ;ರ ."
The condition was that, she could be removed at any time.
Therefore, the petitioner requests for appointment on
compassionate grounds. When the representations were
not considered, she approaches this Court in
W.P.No.104416/2021. The co-ordinate bench disposes the
said writ petition on 12.04.2022, directing consideration of
her application / representations by the following order:
"ORDER
1. The petitioner seeks for issuance of a mandamus to
direct the respondent to consider the representation
submitted by her on 07.10.2021 vide Annexure-N.
2. Vide Annexure-N, the petitioner is seeking for
appointment as an Attender, since she possessed
necessary educational qualification. The request has been
made for appointment on compassionate ground.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2342
3. In my view, the respondent would be obliged to
consider the aforesaid request as expeditiously as possible,
at any rate, within a period of three months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed off."
In terms of the aforesaid order, the petitioner again
represents. The representation was in reiteration of what
was being represented for the last 14 years. This comes
to be rejected on 07.05.2022. The order of rejection
reads as follows:
"F ªÉÄð£À «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ¤ªÀÄä vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÁzÀ ªÀÄÈvÀ
ªÉAPÀmÉñÀ ±ÉÃmï EªÀgÄÀ ¨ÁåAQ£À°è CmÉAqÀgï JAzÀÄ ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸À°è¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ
¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ¯Éèà ªÀÄgÀtºÉÆA¢zÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ ¤ªÀÄUÉ C£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀ
DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¨ÁåAQ£À°è ¹¥Á¬Ä £ËPÀjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß SÁAiÀÄAUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀAvÉ G¯ÉèÃR
£ÀA.(1)gÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ¤ÃªÀÅ «£ÀAw¹gÀÄwÛÃj. CAvÉAiÉÄà ªÉÄîÌAqÀ G¯ÉèÃR £ÀA.(2)gÀ
ªÀÄ£À« CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¸ÄÀ ªÀAvÉ ¨ÁåAQUÉ ¤zÉÃð±À£À ¤ÃqÀ®Ä PÉÆÃj ªÀiÁ£Àå
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÒ£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ EªÀgÀ°è WP-
104416/2021£ÉÃzÀgÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ jmï CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÆß PÀÆqÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ zÁR°¹zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
¨ÁåAQ£À ¹§âA¢ ¸ÉêÁ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½AiÀÄAvÉ C£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ
£ÉêÀÄPÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÀQ̤AzÀ ¸Á¢ü¸À®Ä §gÀ¯ÁgÀzÁVzÀÄÝ. EzÀÄ ¨ÁåAQ£À DqÀ½vÀ
ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ «ªÉÃZÀ£ÉUÉ M¼À¥ÀnÖzÄÀ Ý DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. D ¥ÀæPÁgÀ FUÁUÀ¯ÃÉ ¨ÁåAQ£À DqÀ½vÀ
ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄÄ ¤ªÀÄä «£ÀAw CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹, ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß ¨ÁåAQ£À SÁAiÀÄA
¹§âA¢ JAzÀÄ £ÉêÀÄtÆQUÉ ¥ÀjUÀt¸ÀzÃÉ EgÀ®Ä ¤tðAiÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆArzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
¨ÁåAQ£À ¹§âA¢ ¸ÉêÁ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½AiÀÄ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ-30(1)gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¨ÁåAQ£À
¹§âA¢ ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀqÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄPÉÌ ªÀÄÈvÀgÀ PÀÄlÄA§ªÀÅ ¤UÀðwPÀ ¹ÜwAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ°è ªÀÄÈvÀgÀ
¥Àwß/¥Àw, ªÀÄUÀ AiÀiÁ C«ªÁ»vÀ ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ CxÀªÁ EªÀgÁågÀÆ E®è¢zÀÝ°è ªÀÄÈvÀgÀ
¥ÀwßAiÀÄ ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀ¤UÉ C£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀ £ËPÀjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ¤tðAiÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ
C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÁåAQ£À DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄÈvÀgÀ «ªÁ»vÉ
ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ°è £ÉêÀÄtÆQ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀî®Ä ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½AiÀÄAvÉ
§gÀ¯ÁgÀzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CAvÉAiÉÄà ªÀÄÈvÀ ªÉAPÀmÉñÀ ±ÉÃmï EªÀgÄÀ ¸ÀÄ¢üÃWÀð 34 ªÀµÀð
¨ÁåAPï ¸ÉÃªÉ ªÀiÁr £À«ÄäAzÀ ¥ÀÇtð ¥ÀæªiÀ ÁtzÀ°è ¥ÀUÁgÀÄ, ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ ¸Ë®¨sÀå
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2342
EvÁå¢ J®è jÃwAiÀÄ ¸ÉêÁ ¸Ë®¨såÀ UÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß ¥ÀqÉzÄÀ PÉÆArzÀÄÝ, EAvÀºÀ ªÀÄÈvÀ
¹§âA¢AiÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ C£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¨ÁåAPï £ËPÀj PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉA§
AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
C®èzÉà £ÀªÀÄä ¨ÁåAPÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ±ÉÃgÀÄ, C£ÀÄzÁ£À AiÀiÁ UÀt¤ÃAiÀÄ
ºÀtPÁ¹£À £ÉgÀªÀÅ ºÉÆA¢gÀzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ, ¹§âA¢ £ÉêÀÄPÁw «µÀAiÀÄzÀ°è
¸ÀévÀAvÀæªÁVzÀÄÝ, F ¸ÀAUÀwUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß FUÁUÀ¯Éà ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ ¨Áj °TvÀªÁV ¨ÁåAPÀÄ
¤ªÀÄä UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÀA¢zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¤ÃªÀÅ zÁR°¹zÀÝ jmï Cfð
£ÀA.-104416/2021£ÉÃzÀgÀ°è£À ¢£ÁAPÀ: 12-04-2022gÀ DzÉñÀAvÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 07-
10-2021gÀ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄ£À« CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÅ£ÀB ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁVzÀÄÝ, ¨ÁåAQ£À
ZÁ°ÛAiÀÄ°è£À ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½UÀ¼À£ÀéAiÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä£ÄÀ ß C£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¹§âA¢
JAzÀÄ SÁAiÀÄA £ÉêÀÄtÆQ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀî®Ä ¸ÁzsåÀ ªÁUÀ¯ÁgÀzÀ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß F
ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ªÀÄvÉÆÛªÉÄä ¤ªÀÄUÉ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¹zÉ."
(Emphasis added)
The primary reason upon which the claim is rejected
is that, the Act and Rules will not permit grant of an
appointment to a married daughter of a deceased servant.
It is therefore, the petitioner is again at the doors of this
Court in the subject petition.
10. The learned counsel for the respondents has
placed heavy reliance upon Rule 18 of the Karnataka Co-
operative Societies Rules, 1960 (for short 'the Rules) and
Rule 30 of the Service Rules of the respondents - Bank.
Rule 18 of the Rules reads as follows:
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2342
"18. The method of recruitment and conditions
of services of the employees of a co-operative
society -
(a) No appointment by direct recruitment shall be
made except by calling for applications from
eligible candidates by notifying the same in at
least in more than one Kannada newspaper
having wide circulation in the area of
operation of the co-operative society.
However, a co-operative society having a
taluka and above area of operation and any
co-operative bank shall notify the same at
least in more than one Kannada newspaper
having wider circulation and in an English
newspaper.
Provided that the above said rules shall not
apply to:-
(i) the appointment of an officer whose services
have been lent by the Government;
(ii) the filling up of a post through
compassionate appointment as per
rules."
(Emphasis supplied)
The afore-quoted Rule deals with method of recruitment
and the proviso is clear that the Rule will not apply in the
appointment of an officer, whose services are lent by the
government or the post is to be filled up through
appointment on compassionate grounds. Therefore, the
rigor in Rule 18(1)(a) is not applicable to the case at hand,
which deals with the procedure for direct recruitment.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2342
11. The other Rule on which learned counsel for the
respondents has placed reliance is, the Service Rules of
the Bank (for short 'Service Rules'). Rule 30 of the said
Service Rules deals with appointment on compassionate
grounds. Rule 30 reads as follows:
"Rule 30 - Appointment on Compassionate Grounds:
(1) The Board in exceptional cases, may at its
discretion relax the normal procedure of
appointment in the case of appointment of a
wife/son/daughter/or near relative of an employee
who dies in harness, leaving the family in indigent
circumstances while in service.
(2) The following dependents of a deceased
employee shall be considered for
appointment on compassion grounds.
(i) Widow or husband of the deceased employee.
(ii) Son or unmarried daughter of a deceased
employee.
(iii) Brother of the widow of a deceased employee,
if there are no other dependents as mentioned
at (i) and (ii) above.
No other relatives of the deceased employee
shall be considered for appointment.
(3) The appointments under the scheme shall be
made only for cadre VIII and below."
(Emphasis added)
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2342
The afore-quoted Rule permits appointment on
compassionate grounds only to the son or an unmarried
daughter of a deceased employee. The Rule on the face of
it, is arbitrary.
12. The issue of arbitrariness projected in the subject
petition need not detain this Court for long or delve deep
into the matter as this Court interpreting an identical Rule
in the case of Smt.Bhuvaneshwari V.Puranik vs. The
State Of Karnataka, DPAR and Ors. reported in ILR
2021 Kar 5256, has held that the Rule which excludes
married daughter is unconstitutional. The judgment reads
as follows:
"15. JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION:
15.1. The legal exposition of the Apex Court and
other High Courts with regard to identical provisions in
several Rules including that of Rules of compassionate
appointment are required to be noticed and are as
follows:
15.2. AUTHORITIES RELIED ON BY THE
PETITIONER:
(i) C.B. Muthamma v. Union of India reported in
(1979) 4 SCC 260
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2342
6. At the first blush this rule is in defiance of Article
16. If a married man has a right, a married woman,
other things being equal, stands on no worse footing.
This misogynous posture is a hangover of the masculine
culture of manacling the weaker sex forgetting how our
struggle for national freedom was also a battle against
woman's thraldom. Freedom is indivisible, so is Justice.
That our founding faith enshrined in Articles
14 and 16 should have been tragically ignored vis-a-vis
half of India's humanity viz.
our women, is a sad reflection on the distance
between Constitution in the book and law in action. And
if the executive as the surrogate of Parliament, makes
rules in the teeth of Part III especially when high political
office, even diplomatic assignment has been filled by
women, the inference of diehard allergy to gender parity
is inevitable.
7. We do not mean to universalise or dogmatise
that men and women are equal in all occupations and all
situations and do not exclude the need to pragmatise
where the requirements of particular employment, the
sensitivities of sex or the peculiarities of societal sectors
or the handicaps of either sex may compel selectivity.
But save where the differentiation is demonstrable, the
rule of equality must govern. This creed of our
Constitution has at last told on our governmental
mentation, perhaps partly pressured by the pendency of
this very writ petition. In the counter-affidavit, it is
stated that Rule 18(4) (referred to earlier) has been
deleted on November 12, 1973. And, likewise, the
Central Government's affidavit avers that Rule 8(2) is on
its way to oblivion since its deletion is being gazetted.
Better late than never. At any rate, we are relieved of
the need to scrutinise or strike down these rules.
(ii) Ranjana Murlidhar Anerao v. State of
Maharashtra reported in (2014) 5 Mah LJ 543 The
question that arose before the learned Division Bench of
Bombay High Court is as follows:
The question that arises for determination in this
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is whether the exclusion of a married daughter
from the expression "family" for being entitled to be
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2342
considered for grant of retail kerosene license under
Government Resolution dated 20th February, 2004 can
be said to be legal and valid.
In answer to the aforesaid question, the learned
Division Bench held as follows:
13. From the aforesaid discussion, we have no
hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the
Government Resolution dated 20-2-
2004 to the extent it excludes a married daughter
from being considered as a member of the "family" a
deceased retail license holder is violative of the
provisions of the Articles 14, 15 and 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Minister, Food and
Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection while passing the
impugned order dated 17-6-2009 has taken into
consideration the position as obtained from Government
Resolution dated 20-2-2004. Hence the claim of the
petitioner for being treated as a legal representative of
deceased Godavaribai J. Jadhav has not been considered
as the petitioner was considered to be a married
daughter. In view of our aforesaid findings, the revision
application under clause- 16 of the Licensing Order, 1979
will have to be remitted back for fresh decision in the
light of our aforesaid findings. Hence, we pass the
following order:
(a) The Government Resolutions/Circulars dated
22-12-1997, 16-8-2001, 10-12-2003 and 20-2-2004 to
the extent they exclude a married daughter from being
considered as a member of the "family" of a deceased
retail license holder are held to be violative of
the provisions of Articles 14, 15 and 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution of India;
(b) The respondent No. 1-State of Maharashtra is
directed to issue appropriate Government Resolution in
the light of the conclusion recorded in paragraph-13 of
this judgment;
(c) The impugned order dated 17-6-2009 is
quashed and set aside and the revision application No.
450 under Clause 16 of the Licensing Order of 1979 is
remitted to the State Government for fresh decision in
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2342
accordance with law. It is clarified that this Court has not
gone into the merits of the findings recorded in the order
dated 17-6-2009 and the said revision application shall
be decided afresh in accordance with law;
(d) The petitioner and respondent No. 4(a) are
directed to appear before the Ministry of Food, Civil
Supplies and Consumer Protection on 16-
9-2014. The revision application shall be decided
within a period of three months from the date of
appearance of the parties before the said authority;
(iii) 2013 SCC online BOM 1549 ( DB) reported in
Sou. Swara Sachin Kulkarni (Kumari Deepa Ashok
Kulkarni) v. The Superintending Engineer, Pune
Irrigation Project Circle and Another
2. The petitioner claims that her name has been
deleted only because she is married. A married daughter
could not have laid a claim for compassionate
employment, because in the perception of the
respondent nos. 1 and 2, she is no longer a part of the
family of the deceased. It is this stand, which is
questioned before us, in this writ petition. Mr. Kulkarni,
appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the
facts in this case are peculiar. The deceased only had
daughters. Both daughters are married. The second
daughter is not interested in the job. The petitioner is
interested in the job because she is supporting her
widowed mother. The mother has nobody to look forward
to except the petitioner - daughter. The petitioner has
asserted that even after her marriage she is looking after
her mother in her old age. In such circumstances, the
deletion of her name from the list is violative of the
constitutional mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.
3. It is on this point that we have heard the
Counsel and after perusing the writ petition and all the
annexures thereto, so also the affidavit placed on record,
we are of the opinion that the petitioner's name could
not have been deleted from the list. The compassionate
employment is to enable the family to get or tide over a
financial crisis. As the petitioner is the only member who
can earn and support the mother in her old age, so also
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2342
the emoluments including the pension of the deceased
are inadequate that she was interested in pursing her
claim. The name of the petitioner was therefore duly
reflected in a list initially and thereafter a recruitment or
appointment exercise was undertaken. The petitioner
therefore was wait listed at Serial No. 10. Thus, initially
her number was 1070 and which advanced to Serial No.
10. We find that the respondents insisted on the
petitioner submitting a certificate that she is unmarried,
that is by a communication dated 21st May, 2011. The
petitioner pointed out that such an insistence is
impermissible in law. A letter dated 27th February, 2009
was issued communicating to her that her name has
been deleted from the wait list owing to her marriage. If
the petitioner's name is to be deleted from the list
because of her marriage then insistence on production of
a certificate about her marital status in the year 2011
was clearly an exercise visited by non-application of
mind. The deletion by letter dated th 27 February, 2009
itself is violative of constitutional mandate. We cannot
expect a Welfare State to take a stand that a married
daughter is in-eligible to apply for compassionate
appointment simply because she becomes a member of
her husband's family. She cannot be treated as not
belonging to her father's family. The deceased was
her father. In this case, the deceased has only
daughters. Both are married. The wife of the deceased
and the mother of the daughters has nobody else to look
to for support, financially and otherwise in her old age.
In such circumstances, the stand of the State that
married daughter will not be eligible or cannot be
considered for compassionate appointment violates the
mandate of Article 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of
India. No discrimination can be made in public
employment on gender basis. If the object sought can be
achieved is assisting the family in financial crisis by
giving employment to one of the dependents, then,
undisputedly in this case the daughter was dependent on
the deceased and his income till her marriage. Even her
marriage was solemnized from the income and the
terminal benefits of the deceased. In such circumstances
if after marriage she wishes to assist her family of which
she continues to be a part despite her marriage, then,
we do see how she is dis- entitled or ineligible for being
considered for compassionate employment. This would
create discrimination only on the basis of gender. We do
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2342
no see any rationale for this classification and
discrimination being made in matters of compassionate
appointment and particularly when the employment is
sought under the State. The State is obliged to bear in
mind the constitutional mandate and also
directive principles of the State Policy. The point raised in
this case is covered by the Judgment of a Division Bench
in Writ Petition No. 1284 of 2011 decided on 1.8.2011
and a Judgment of a learned Single Judge in W.P. No.
6056 of 2010 decided on 26th October, 2010, all of this
Court.
4. In such circumstances, the th communication
dated 27 February, 2009, copy of which is annexed at
page 30 of the paper book cannot be sustained. The writ
petition is allowed. This communication is quashed and
set aside and equally the further communications in
pursuance thereof. The petitioner's name shall stand
restored to the wait list maintained by respondent nos. 1
and 2 for appointment on compassionate basis.
However, we clarify that we have not issued any
direction to appoint the petitioner. Let her case be
considered in terms of the applicable policy of
Compassionate Appointment or Employment together
with others. Her name should not be deleted or omitted
only because she is married and that is why we have
restored her name in the wait list. Beyond that we have
not issued any direction.
(iv) Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi reported in
(2019) 14 SCC 646
13. The policy of compassionate appointment is
premised on the death of an employee while in harness.
The death of an employee is liable to render the family in
a position of financial hardship and need. Compassionate
appointment is intended to alleviate the hardship that
the family of a deceased employee may face upon
premature death while in service. Compassionate
appointment, in other words, is not founded merely on
parentage or descent, for public employment must be
consistent with equality of opportunity which Article
16 of the Constitution guarantees. Hence, before a claim
for compassionate appointment is asserted by the family
of a deceased employee or is granted by the State, the
employer must have rules or a scheme which envisage
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2342
such appointment. It is in that sense that it is a trite
principle of law that there is no right to compassionate
appointment. Even where there is a scheme of
compassionate appointment, an application for
engagement can only be considered in accordance with
and subject to fulfilling the conditions of the rules or the
scheme. The submission which has been urged on behalf
of the Union of India by the learned Additional Solicitor
General is premised on the basis that there is no right to
compassionate appointment. There can be no doubt
about the principle that there is no right as such to
compassionate appointment but only an entitlement,
where a scheme or rules envisaging it exist, to be
considered in accordance with the provisions.
20. The High Court has proceeded on the basis that
the recognition of legitimacy in Section 16 is restricted
only to the property of the deceased and for no other
purpose. The High Court has missed the principle that
Section 16(1) treats a child born from a marriage which
is null and void as legitimate. Section 16(3), however,
restricts the right of the child in respect of property only
to the property of the parents. Section 16(3), however,
does not in any manner affect the principle declared in
sub-section (1) of Section 16 in regard to the legitimacy
of the child. Our attention has also been drawn to a
judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Madras High
Court in M. Muthuraj v. State [M. Muthuraj v. State,
2016 SCC OnLine Mad 2387 : (2016) 5 CTC 50] adopting
the same position. In the view which we have taken, we
have arrived at the conclusion that the exclusion of a
child born from a second marriage from seeking
compassionate appointment under the terms of the
circular of the Railway Board is ultra vires. A Division
Bench of the Madras High Court followed the view of the
Calcutta High Court in Namita Goldar [Namita Goldar v.
Union of India, 2010 SCC OnLine Cal 266 : (2010) 1 Cal
LJ 464] in Union of India v. M. Karumbayee [Union of
India v. M. Karumbayee, 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 13030]
. A special leave petition filed against the judgment of
the Division Bench was dismissed by this Court on 18-9-
2017 [Union of India v. M. Karumbayee, 2017 SCC
OnLine SC 1797] .
15.3. AUTHORITIES RELIED ON BY THE
RESPONDENT - STATE:
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2342
(i) Indian Bank v. Promila reported in (2020) 2 SCC
4. It is trite to emphasise, based on numerous
judicial pronouncements of this Court, that
compassionate appointment is not an alternative to the
normal course of appointment, and that there is no
inherent right to seek compassionate appointment. The
objective is only to provide solace and succour to the
family in difficult times and, thus, the relevancy is at that
stage of time when the employee passes away.
20. We have to keep in mind the basic principles
applicable to the cases of compassionate employment
i.e. succour being provided at the stage of unfortunate
demise, coupled with compassionate employment not
being an alternate method of public employment. If
these factors are kept in mind, it would be noticed that
the respondents had the wherewithal at the relevant
stage of time, as per the norms, to deal with the
unfortunate situation which they were faced with. Thus,
looked under any Schemes, the respondents cannot
claim benefit, though, as clarified aforesaid, it is only the
relevant Scheme prevalent on the date of demise of the
employee, which could have been considered to be
applicable, in view of the judgment of this Court
in Canara Bank [Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar,
(2015) 7 SCC 412 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 539] . It is not
for the courts to substitute a Scheme or add or subtract
from the terms thereof in judicial review, as has been
recently emphasised by this Court in State of H.P. v.
Parkash Chand [State of H.P. v. Parkash Chand, (2019)
4 SCC 285 :
(2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 621] .
21. We may have sympathy with the respondents
about the predicament they faced on the demise of Shri
Jagdish Raj, but then sympathy alone cannot give
remedy to the respondents, more so when the relevant
benefits available to the respondents have been granted
by the appellant Bank and when Respondent 1, herself,
was in employment having monthly income above the
benchmark.
(ii) State of H.P. v. Parkash Chand reported in
(2019) 4 SCC 285
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2342
10. In the exercise of judicial review under Article
226 of the Constitution, it was not open to the High
Court to rewrite the terms of the Policy. It is well settled
that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right,
but must be governed by the terms on which the State
lays down the policy of offering employment assistance
to a member of the family of a deceased government
employee.
[Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [Umesh
Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 :
1994 SCC (L&S) 930] , SBI v. Kunti Tiwary [SBI v. Kunti
Tiwary, (2004) 7 SCC 271 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 943] ,
Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja [Punjab
National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, (2004) 7 SCC
265 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 938] , SBI v. Somvir Singh [SBI
v. Somvir Singh, (2007) 4 SCC 778 : (2007) 2 SCC
(L&S) 92] , Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of
Maharashtra [Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of
Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S)
1077] , Union of India v. Shashank Goswami [Union of
India v. Shashank Goswami, (2012) 11 SCC 307 :
(2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 51] , SBI v. Surya Narain Tripathi
[SBI v. Surya Narain Tripathi, (2014) 15 SCC 739 :
(2015) 3 SCC (L&S) 689] and Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh
Kumar [Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC
412 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 539] .]
(iii) State Bank of India v. Somvir Singh reported in
(2007) 4 SCC 778
7. Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India
guarantees to all its citizens equality of opportunity in
matters relating to employment or appointment to any
office under the State.
Article 16(2) protects citizens against discrimination
in respect of any employment or office under the State
on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex and descent.
It is so well settled and needs no restatement at our end
that appointment on compassionate grounds is an
exception carved out to the general rule that recruitment
to public services is to be made in a transparent and
accountable manner providing opportunity to all eligible
persons to compete and participate in the selection
process. Such appointments are required to be made on
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2342
the basis of open invitation of applications and merit.
Dependants of employees died in harness do not have
any special or additional claim to public services other
than the one conferred, if any, by the employer.
8. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of
Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930 :
(1994) 27 ATC 537] this Court held:
(SCC pp. 139-40, para 2) "As a rule, appointments
in the public services should be made strictly on the
basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No
other mode of appointment nor any other consideration
is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public
authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or
relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the
post. However, to this general rule which is to be
followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions
carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain
contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the
dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving
his family in penury and without any means of livelihood.
In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration
taking into consideration the fact that unless some
source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be
able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the
rules to provide gainful employment to one of the
dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such
employment. The whole object of granting
compassionate employment is thus to enable the family
to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a
member of such family a post much less a post for post
held by the deceased."
(emphasis added)
9. In Union Bank of India v. M.T. Latheesh [(2006)
7 SCC 350 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1646] this Court while
dealing with the similar question observed that
indiscriminate grant of employment on compassionate
grounds would shut the door for employment to the
evergrowing population of unemployed youth.
15.4. An analysis of the judgments relied on
by the petitioner and the respondent-State as
extracted hereinabove would lead to two
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2342
conclusions. One, dependency is the key
determinative factor for grant of compassionate
appointment and the other being a Rule that
brooks discrimination on the basis of gender is not
to remain in the statute book as it would
violate Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of
India, Article 15 in particular, which prohibits
discrimination on the basis of religion, race, sex,
gender. Even the remotest impression a Rule gives
that its consequence is resulting in any of the
ingredients of Articles 14 and 15 being violated,
such a Rule will have to be held to be ultravires the
Constitution.
15.5. The Rule that is called in question and
has fallen for interpretation, without a shadow of a
doubt is discriminatory as the words "unmarried"
permeates through the entire fabric of Rule 2 and 3
as extracted hereinabove to deny appointment to a
married daughter. If the Rule is left as it is, in view
of my preceding analysis, would create a
discrimination on the basis of gender. If the
marital status of a son does not make any
difference in law to his entitlement for seeking
appointment on compassionate grounds, the
marital status of a daughter should make no
difference, as the married daughter does not cease
to be a part of the family and law cannot make an
assumption that married sons alone continue to be
the part of the family. Therefore, the Rule which
becomes violative of Articles 14, 15 on its
interpretation will have to be struck down as
unconstitutional as excluding the daughters purely
on the basis of marriage will constitute an
impermissible discrimination which is invidious
and be violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the
Constitution of India.
It should be remembered that "nature bestows so
much on women; the law cannot bestow too little".
(Emphasis supplied)
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2342
The State Government amends the Rules in
compliance with the order passed by this Court supra. The
Apex Court has granted its imprimatur to the order passed
by this Court in the afore-quoted case.
13. In that light, the denial of appointment of the
petitioner on compassionate grounds on the score that she
is a married daughter on the face of it, is arbitrary and
illegal. Therefore, the said reason is unsustainable. It is
high time, the respondents amend the Rules in tune with
the law.
14. The other submission made is, with regard to
delay. The death has happened in the year 2007,
representations are submitted for the fourteen long years,
no action is taken. The destitute condition of the family of
the petitioner continues. The petitioner pleads for some
appointment in the bank. She was offered the post of
attender on contract basis to be renewed from time to
time. The petitioner then takes a claim for appointment
on compassionate grounds by submitting plethora of
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2342
representations. Therefore, the respondents - bank
having not considered the representations for ages and
cannot now project the ground of delay on the part of the
petitioner in seeking appointment. Even otherwise, this
Court while disposing the petition on earlier occasion in
2022, had heard the petitioner, delay was not the ground
that was projected then. Delay cannot be a ground that
can be projected now. The delay infact, is attributable to
the first respondent and not to the petitioner.
15. This case forms a classic illustration to issue
direction to consider the case of the petitioner for
appointment on compassionate grounds as there is no
impediment in law to deny such appointment to the
petitioner, as the family even today, is driven by
impecuniosities and is not in a position that can be
described as beyond 'hand-to-mouth'.
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2342
16. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed.
ii. The endorsement dated 07.05.2022 stands
quashed.
iii. The respondents-Bank is directed to reconsider
the case of the petitioner for appointment on
compassionate grounds, bearing in mind the
observations made in the course of the order, in
accordance with law, within two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
iv. The petitioner shall file an affidavit of
undertaking before the Bank that she would
take care of the mother during her lifetime, if
offered an appointment on compassionate
grounds. This would be a condition precedent.
Ordered accordingly.
__________SD/-__________
JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
