Karnataka High Court
The Chief Engineer vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 June, 2025
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7312-DB
WP No. 104173 of 2021
C/W WP No. 104714 of 2021
HC-KAR
®
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO.104173 OF 2021 (S-KAT)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.104714 OF 2021
IN W.P. NO.104173 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM NIYAMITHA,
IRRIGATION (NORTH),
DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.
Digitally signed by 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM NIYAMITHA,
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH DIV. NO.2, HIDAKAL DAM,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591107.
3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
GRBCC, SUB-DIVISION NO.1,
HIDAKAL DAM-591107,
TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S.M. KALWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7312-DB
WP No. 104173 of 2021
C/W WP No. 104714 of 2021
HC-KAR
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES,
VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. SRI. SHABBIR AHMED DALVAI
S/O. IMAM HUSSAIN DALAVAI,
AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
R/O. RANGASWAMY CAMP,
HIDAKAL DAM-591107,
TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. M.S. HARAVI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2)
THE WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR
ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THE ORDER
DATED 06.12.2017 IN APPLICATION NO.323/2011 PASSED BY THE
KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU
BENCH, PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,.
IN W.P. NO.104714 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP/BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES,
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
IRRIGATION, KARNATAKA NIRAVARI NIGAM,
BELAGAVI, PIN.NO-591107.
3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
GRBCC, SUB DIVISION NO.13,
HIDAKAL DAM, PIN.NO-591107.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. SHABBIR AHMED DALVAI
S/O. IMAM HUSSAIN DALAVAI,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7312-DB
WP No. 104173 of 2021
C/W WP No. 104714 of 2021
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
R/O. RANGASWAMY CAMP,
HIDAKAL DAM, HUKKERI TALUK,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT, PIN.NO-591107.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
IRRIGATION, KARNATAKA
NIRAVARI NIGAM LIMITED,
DIVISION NO.2, HIDAKAL DAM,
PIN.NO-591107.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.S. HARAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED
BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.323/2011 BY ORDER DATED
06.12.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS)
Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.12.2017
in Application No.323/2011 passed by the Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, the State of
Karnataka and the Chief Engineer, Karnataka Neeravari
Nigama Niyamitha have filed these two Writ Petitions.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7312-DB
HC-KAR
Therefore, both the Writ Petitions were clubbed, heard
together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The application was filed by the respondent
herein seeking a direction to the petitioners herein to
consider the application for appointment on compassionate
grounds as per Rules, 1996.
3. The admitted facts are that the father of the
respondent herein, while working as a regular Group-D
employee with Karnataka Neeravari Nigama Niyamitha,
died in harness on 07.03.1996. It is the contention of the
respondent that he was a minor on the date of death of his
father, he being born on 10.07.1983 and he attained
majority only on 10.07.2001. The very next day after
attainment of majority, the respondent filed an application
on 11.07.2001 seeking appointment on compassionate
grounds. It has been noticed by the Tribunal that the
petitioners herein have rejected the application by
applying amended Rule 5 of the Karnataka Civil Services
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7312-DB
HC-KAR
(Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1999. It
is also noticed by the Tribunal that though the learned
counsel for the Karnataka Neeravari Nigama Niyamitha
contended that the application filed by the respondent
herein was earlier rejected and it is stated so in the reply
statement, nevertheless the rejection order was not
produced along with the statement of objections. The
Tribunal while placing reliance on a decision of this Court
in the case of Ravikumar vs. State of Karnataka in
W.P.No.32699/2002 dated 03.04.2003, held that the
amended Rule 5 must be deemed to be prospective in
operation and therefore, the Tribunal has opined that since
the Government Servant died on 07.03.1996, the Rules
prevalent as on the said date should be applied and since
the Rules clearly permitted such an application to be made
by a minor, immediately after his attaining majority and
the fact that the respondent herein filed the application
the very next day after the attainment of majority, the
Tribunal has allowed the application while directing the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7312-DB
HC-KAR
respondents to consider the application in terms of the
unamended Rules, 1996.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, including
the learned Government Advocate have vehemently
contended that the issue as to whether the amended
provision would apply or unamended provision would apply
is no more res integra, since the very same issue referred
to a Larger Bench has been decided in N.C. Santosh vs.
State of Karnataka and others1, and held that the norms,
prevailing on the date of consideration of the application,
should be the basis for the consideration of claim for
compassionate appointment.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
would seek to place reliance on a subsequent judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of Secretary to Government
Department of Education (Primary) and others vs.
Bheemesh Alias Bheemappa2 where the decision of the
(2020) 7 SCC 617
2021 SCC OnLine 1264
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7312-DB
HC-KAR
Larger Bench in N.C. Santosh was also considered and
nevertheless it was held that there is no principle of
statutory interpretation which permits a decision on the
applicability of a Rule, to be based upon an indeterminate
or variable factor. A Rule of interpretation which produces
different results, depending upon what the individuals do
or do not do, was held inconceivable.
6. Having heard the learned counsels for the
petitioners, including the learned Government Advocate
and the learned counsel for respondent, we find that in
N.C. Santosh, which was decided by a Bench of three
Judges, the appellants therein, who were appointed on
compassionate grounds were later dismissed from service
or their appointments were cancelled after discovery that
their appointments were made dehors the provisions of
the Karnataka Civil Serves (Appointment on
Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 as amended with
effected from 01.04.1999. The Apex Court has culled out
in detail the facts obtained in all the three cases before the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7312-DB
HC-KAR
Apex Court where it was found that when the Government
employees died, the appellants were minors and they had
turned 18, well beyond one year of death of the parent.
While referring to the chart in paragraph No.6, it was
found that the dependents attained majority after a gap of
2-6 years from the respective date of death of their
parents and then they applied for appointment. By the
time, the dependent children turn 18, the amended
provisions became operational with effect from
01.04.1999. It was therefore found that the applications
were filed belatedly and the same was required to be
rejected at the threshold as being not in conformity with
the proviso to the Rule 5. It was held that the appellants
applied for compassionate appointment well beyond the
stipulated period of one year from the date of death of the
parent and therefore, those applications should not have
been entertained being in contravention of the Rules.
7. We should also notice that the Hon'ble Apex
Court also found that the amended Rules were not under
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7312-DB
HC-KAR
challenge. Similarly, in the present case too there is no
challenge raised by the respondents to the amended
provision. While applying the law governing compassionate
appointment made, it was concluded by the Apex Court as
follows:
"19. Applying the law governing compassionate
appointment culled out from the abovecited
judgments, our opinion on the point at issue is that
the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of
the application, should be the basis for consideration
of claim for compassionate appointment. A dependant
of a government employee, in the absence of any
vested right accruing on the death of the government
employee, can only demand consideration of his/her
application. He is, however, disentitled to seek
consideration in accordance with the norms as
applicable, on the day of death of the government
employee.
20. In view of the foregoing opinion, we endorse
the Tribunal's view as affirmed1 by the High Court of
Karnataka to the effect that the appellants were
ineligible for compassionate appointment when their
applications were considered and the unamended
provisions of Rule 5 of the Rules will not apply to
them. Since no infirmity is found in the impugned
judgments1, 3, 4, the appeals are found devoid of merit
and the same are dismissed."
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7312-DB
HC-KAR
8. Although in the subsequent decision in the
case of Bheemesh @ Bheemappa (supra) it was held that
there is a conflict as to whether the scheme in force on the
date of death of the employee would apply or the scheme
in force on the date of consideration of the application of
appointment on compassionate grounds would apply, it
was held that there is certainly no conflict about the
underlying concerns reflected in the decisions of the Apex
Court in the cases of Indian Bank and others vs. Promila
and another3, N.C. Santosh vs. State of Karnataka
(supra), State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Amit
Shrivas4 and State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs.
Ashish Awasthi5.
9. It would be beneficial to notice the reason for
such observation in paragraph No.17 of the judgment in
Bheemappa's case.
"17. Keeping the above in mind, if we
critically analyse the way in which this Court has
(2020) 2 SCC 729
(2020) 10 SCC 496
(2022) 2 SCC 157
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7312-DB
HC-KAR
proceeded to interpret the applicability of a new or
modified Scheme that comes into force after the
death of the employee, we may notice an interesting
feature. In cases where the benefit under the
existing Scheme was taken away or substituted with
a lesser benefit, this Court directed the application of
the new Scheme. But in cases where the benefits
under an existing Scheme were enlarged by a
modified Scheme after the death of the employee,
this Court applied only the Scheme that was in force
on the date of death of the employee. This is
fundamentally due to the fact that compassionate
appointment was always considered to be an
exception to the normal method of recruitment and
perhaps looked down upon with lesser compassion
for the individual and greater concern for the rule of
law."
10. In that view of the matter, while applying the
ratio of the judgments of the Apex Court, more particularly
the judgment in N.C. Santosh, this Court is of the
considered opinion that since the respondent herein filed
the application on 11.07.2001, beyond the period of one
year contemplated in the proviso to Rule 5 in terms of the
amended provision which came into effect from
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7312-DB
HC-KAR
01.04.1999, the application filed by the respondent is
required to be rejected.
11. During the course of these proceedings, the
learned counsel for Karnataka Neeravari Nigama
Niyamitha has also drawn the attention of this Court to
Annexure-A8 which was in fact filed by the respondent
herein along with the application before the Tribunal.
Learned counsel has pointed out that the respondent has
admitted the fact that his application was rejected
immediately after it was filed in the year 2001. In fact,
the application was rejected on 22.08.2003. It is
therefore to be held that the respondent filed the
application belatedly before the Tribunal in the year 2011,
although the application was rejected in the year 2003
itself. Even on that ground, the application filed by the
respondent is required to be rejected.
12. Consequently, we proceed to allow both the
Writ Petitions while setting aside the impugned order
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7312-DB
HC-KAR
dated 06.12.2017 in Application No.323/2011 passed by
the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K V ARAVIND)
JUDGE
NAA
CT: UMD
