Karnataka High Court
Shantabai W/O Late Dharmanna Rathod vs The Union Of India on 7 February, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2518
WP No. 106329 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 106329 OF 2018 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHANTABAI W/O LATE DHARMANNA RATHOD
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: PLOT NO.122/A/3/4,
WARD NO.X-
C/O K.G. NAIK, ADVOCATE,
RENUKA NIVAS, NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
BAGALKOTE-587101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. Y R JOGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. THE UNION OF INDIA
by VISHAL
NINGAPPA
REPTD. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER,
PATTIHAL SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
Location: High
Court of HUBBALLI-580020.
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER,
RFP, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
HUBBALLI-580020.
3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER,
RPF, SECURITYI COMMISSIONER,
SECURITY DEPARTMENT,
SECUNDERABAD, AP.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VENKATESH M KHARVI, DSGI)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2518
WP No. 106329 of 2018
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO:-DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT NO.4 TO CONSIDER THE ANNEXURE-"A' DATED
16.07.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND ACT FOR
PROVIDING APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS AS
PER THE DIRECTION OF THE RESPONDENT NO.3.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
'B GROUP', THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking a
direction by issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus
directing consideration of her representation for
appointment on compassionate grounds to her grandson.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Y.R.Yogi
appearing for the petitioner and the learned DGSI
Sri.Venkatesh M. Kharvi appearing for the respondents.
3. The husband of the petitioner was a Constable
in the Reserve Police Force (RPF) is said to have died in
harness in the year 1998. The family does not seek
appointment on compassionate grounds immediately.
Time passes by, the grandson comes of age. Realizing the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2518
fact that the grandson is now more than 18 years submits
representation on 16.07.2018, seeking appointment on
compassionate grounds to her grandson. This is not
considered and therefore the petitioner is at the doors of
this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the
nature of mandamus, directing consideration of the case of
the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
takes this Court through the Rule concerning
Compassionate Appointment, to contend that in
exceptional circumstances compassionate appointment can
be given at any point in time even if there is an earning
member in the family or there is no earning member in the
family, that is immaterial, is his submission and seeks that
a mandamus must be issued to the respondent to consider
the case of the petitioner for grant of appointment on
compassionate grounds.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing the
respondent would vehemently refute the submissions to
contend that the petitioner-wife has submitted her first
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2518
representation after 20 years of the death of the sole
breadwinner of the family, therefore, the consideration
cannot be made at this length in time that too seeking
appointment to the grandson.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to
submissions made by the respective counsels.
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The
employee i.e., the Constable in the Reserve Police Force
dies in harness on 19.04.1998. After the death, the family
keeps quiet. Twenty years passes by, the grandson has
now come of age to seek appointment on compassionate
grounds. Therefore submits a representation on
16.07.1998. If a direction is issued to consider the
representation of the petitioner in the aforesaid facts, it
would become a mockery of law. Compassionate
appointment cannot be sought after a considerable length
of time when the family has been able to sustain itself with
the loss of the breadwinner. But even issuing a mandamus
to consider the representation of the petitioner would run
foul of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2518
J&K vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir reported in (2006) 5 SCC
766, wherein the Apex Court held as follows:
"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 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
except where compelling circumstances demand, such as,
death of sole bread earner and likelihood of the family
suffering because of the set back. Once it is proved that in
spite of death of bread earner, the family survived and
substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say
'goodbye' to normal rule of appointment and to show favour
to one at the cost of interests of several others ignoring the
mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.
12. xxx
13.xxx
14. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana &
Ors. [(1994) 4 SCC 138], 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 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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2518
rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into
consideration the financial condition of the family of the
deceased. This favorable 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 Smt. Sushma Gosain & Ors. v. Union of India
& Ors. [(1989) 4 SCC 468], it was observed that in claims of
appointment on compassionate grounds, there should be no
delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment
on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to
death of the bread-earner in the family. Such appointments
should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the
family in distress.
16. Recently, in Commissioner of Public Instructions
& Ors. v. K.R. Vishwanath, [(2005) 7 SCC 206], 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 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 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 death of the employee. Moreover,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2518
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."
8. In the light of the aforesaid facts of the
representation seeking compassionate appointment being
tendered 20 years after the death of the breadwinner, no
ground is made to even issue a mandamus to consider the
said claim at the hands of the respondent.
9. Finding no merit in the petition, petition stands
rejected.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
KGK
