Karnataka High Court
Rajesh Ashok Golappagol vs Union Of India on 9 June, 2025
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:19441-DB
WP No. 34878 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT PETITION NO. 34878 OF 2024 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
RAJESH ASHOK GOLAPPAGOL,
S/O. SHRI. ASHOK GOLAPPAGOL,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
C/O. SHANKAR MANGALAGATTI,
112/1, PLOT NO. 62,
SHRIDEVI NILAYA, ATMANAD LAYOUT,
NEAR TAPOVAN, DHARWAD - 580 003.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. TARSEM CHAND GUPTA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by
KAVYA R
1. UNION OF INDIA,
Location:
High Court THROUGH THE FINANCE SECRETARY,
of Karnataka MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2. PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
KARNATAKA AND GOA REGION,
QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. PRAMOD, CGC FOR R1)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:19441-DB
WP No. 34878 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO THAT
THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 14.10.2024 IN OA No-64/2023
ANNEXURE-A, MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE
WP MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS
TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER FOR
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT IN A JUDICIOUS FAIR AND
TRANSPARENT MANNER FROM DUE DATE, WITH ALL
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated
14.10.2024 in O.A.64/2023 (Annexure-A) rejecting his request
to provide compassionate appointment, is before this court in
this writ petition.
2. Heard learned counsel Mr.Tarsem Chand Gupta
appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel Mr.B.Pramod,
learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the
respondents. Perused the writ petition papers.
3. The petitioner claims that his father who was
working in respondent No.2's office died in the year 1999, at
NC: 2025:KHC:19441-DB
HC-KAR
that point of time, the petitioner was minor. On attaining the
age of majority in the year 2005, he is said to have made
application seeking compassionate appointment.
4. On the said application, information was sought
from time to time and under endorsement dated 06.05.2020
(Annexure-A1), the request of the petitioner to provide
compassionate ground appointment is rejected. Questioning the
same, the petitioner was before the Central Administrative
Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal vide impugned
order dated 14.10.2024 rejected the petitioner's application.
Questioning the same, the petitioner is before this court.
5. On going through the impugned order, it is seen
that the application of the petitioner is mainly dismissed on the
ground of delay of 16 years in approaching the tribunal.
6. The tribunal has observed that the cause of action
arose to the petitioner on 30.08.2006 but the petitioner
approached the Tribunal only in the year 2023.
NC: 2025:KHC:19441-DB
HC-KAR
7. We do not find any irregularity or error in the
judgment passed by the tribunal dismissing the application on
the ground of delay of 16 years in approaching the tribunal.
8. The object of providing compassionate ground
appointment is to overcome immediate financial difficulty by
the dependants of the deceased government servant or bread
earner.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in STATE OF WEST
BENGAL v/s DEBABRATA TIWARI AND OTHERS reported in
2023 SCC OnLine SC 219 in an identical fact situation
wherein an application for compassionate appointment was
made and several years thereafter approached the Court by
filing writ petition. In the said circumstance, the Hon'ble Apex
Court at paragraphs 44, 45 and 46 has observed as follows:
44. As noted in the said case, the operation
of a policy/scheme for compassionate appointment is
founded on considerations of immediacy. A sense of
immediacy is called for not only in the manner in
which the applications are processed by the
concerned authorities but also in the conduct of the
applicant in pursuing his case, before the authorities
and if needed before the Courts.
NC: 2025:KHC:19441-DB
HC-KAR
45. In the present case, the applications for
compassionate appointment were made by the
Respondents-Writ Petitioners in the year 2005-2006.
Admittedly, the first concrete step taken by the
Chairman of the Burdwan Municipality was in the
year 2013, when the said authority forwarded a list
of candidates to be approved by the Director of Local
Bodies, Burdwan Municipality. The Respondents-Writ
Petitioners knocked on the doors of the High Court of
Calcutta only in the year 2015, i.e., after a lapse of
nearly ten years from the date of making the
application for compassionate appointment. The
Respondents-Writ Petitioners were not prudent
enough to approach the Courts sooner, claiming that
no concrete step had been taken by the Appellant-
State in furtherance of the application by seeking a
Writ in the nature of Mandamus.
46. The sense of immediacy in the matter of
compassionate appointment has been lost in the
present case. This is attributable to the authorities of
the Appellant-State as well as the Respondents-
Writ Petitioners. Now, entertaining a claim which was
made in 2005-2006, in the year 2023, would be of
no avail, because admittedly, the Respondents-Writ
Petitioners have been able to eke out a living even
though they did not successfully get appointed to the
services of the Municipality on compassionate
NC: 2025:KHC:19441-DB
HC-KAR
grounds. Hence, we think that this is therefore not fit
cases to direct that the claim of the Respondents-
Writ Petitioners for appointments on compassionate
grounds, be considered or entertained.
10. In the instant case, if the petitioner was able to
survive for more than 15 years, the conclusion would be that
the petitioner was/is not in need of compassionate
appointment. We do not see any error in the judgment passed
by the tribunal. There is no merit in the petition.
Accordingly, petition stands rejected.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
SS
CT: BHK
