Karnataka High Court
Smt Chaitra M S vs Principal Secretary on 24 March, 2025
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:12237-DB
WP No. 24078 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 24078 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SMT. CHAITRA M.S
D/O LATE D. SRINIVASA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
NO.623, HUDKO (E.W.S) COLONY
BANNI MANTAPA
MYSORE-570 015
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KESHAVA REDDY M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL AND
by SHAKAMBARI
Location: High
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
Court of M.S.BUILDINGS
Karnataka DR. AMBEDKER BEEDI
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PRINTING
STATIONARY AND PUBLICATION
GOVERNMENT CENTRAL PRINTING
PRESS, 8TH MILE, R.V COLLEGE POST
MYSURU ROAD, BENGALURU-560 059
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:12237-DB
WP No. 24078 of 2024
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PRINTING
STATIONARY AND PUBLICATION
GOVERNMENT CENTRAL PRINTING PRESS
GOVERNMENT DIVISIONAL
PRINTING PRESS, SARASWATHI PURAM
MYSURU-570 009
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.RAVINDRANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL
FOR ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE KSAT PERTAINING TO THE
APPLICATION OF PETITIONER BEARING NO.2685/2023 AND
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF
THE KSAT DATED 26/07/2024 IN APPLICATION NO.2685/2023
AND ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR ORDERS
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO APPOINT THE PETITIONER
IN ANY SUITABLE POST AS APPLICABLE UNDER THE RULES
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:12237-DB
WP No. 24078 of 2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
The instant Writ petition is instituted assailing
legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 26th July
2024, rendered by the Karnataka State Administrative
Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as KSAT') in application
No.2685/2023 whereby, the Tribunal dismissed the
petitioner's claim for appointment on compassionate
grounds under the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment
on compassionate grounds), Rules 1996 (hereinafter
referred to as `1996 Rules').
2. In this petition, the petitioner asserts and
maintains that, she is the married daughter of deceased
Government Servant i.e. late Sri Srinivasa Murthy who
was an employee in the Department of Printing, Stationary
and Publications, Mysuru. It is stated that, the said
Sri Srinivasamurthy unfortunately passed away on
03.09.2020. The main crux of the petitioner's case is that,
she was entirely dependent on her deceased father for
NC: 2025:KHC:12237-DB
financial sustenance. Furthermore, it is stated that in an
attempt to reinforce her claim, her mother and elder sister
have executed their respective affidavits relinquishing their
claim in her favour and thereby, the petitioner is seeking
to establish her exclusive entitlement to compassionate
appointment.
3. In furtherance of the petitioner's claim, she
submitted an application for compassionate appointment
on 13.09.2021, which was undeniably beyond the
statutory period prescribed for a period of one year from
the date of demise of the Govt. servant. The competent
authority rejected her application on the following pivotal
grounds;
(a) That the petitioner, being a married
daughter, was/is not eligible under the
unamended provisions of 1996 rules.,
which did not recognize married daughters
NC: 2025:KHC:12237-DB
as dependent family members who are
entitled to compassionate appointment.
(b) That the amendment to the 1996 Rules,
which sought to include married daughters
within the scope of "Dependent Family
Members" came into force on 9.4.2021
and was prospective in nature, thereby,
not encompassing the petitioner's case, as
her father had expired prior to the said
amendment.
(c) That Rule-5 of the 1996 Rules mandates
that, an application for compassionate
appointment must be submitted within
one year from the date of death of
Government service. The petitioner having
submitted her application beyond this
stipulated period rendered her claim,
legally untenable due the statutory bar of
limitation.
NC: 2025:KHC:12237-DB
4. The petitioner filed an application before the
KSAT. After hearing an exhaustive submission of both the
side, and on meticulous examination of the factual and
legal substratum of the case, the KSAT upheld the
rejection order passed by the Appointing Authority and
dismissed the petitioner's application by holding, that she
had failed to satisfy the eligibility criteria prescribed under
the 1996 Rules.
5. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, now
the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the
decision of the KSAT on the primary premise that "the
Tribunal failed to appreciate her absolute financial
dependency on deceased Government servant on her
father".
Arguments of counsel for petitioner:
6. The petitioner specifically contends, that the
rejection of her application was manifestly arbitrary,
unreasonable and violative of the very objective sought to
NC: 2025:KHC:12237-DB
be achieved by the Compassionate Grounds Scheme. She
further asserts, a beneficial and purpose interpretation of
the 1996 Rules ought to have been adopted to ensure that
the scheme fulfills its intended purpose. Therefore, she
prays to set aside the impugned orders passed by the
KSAT and requested to allow this petition.
Arguments on behalf of respondents:
7. Before the KSAT, the respondents resisted the
petition vehemently by contending that, the
compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a
concession extended under exceptional circumstances, to
be strictly governed by the statutory provisions. It is
argued that, any relaxation of eligibility criteria or
extension of statutory time line would amount to judicial
legislation which is impermissible in law.
8. We have heard the arguments of both the side.
Perused the records. In view of rival contentions of both
NC: 2025:KHC:12237-DB
the side, in this case, it necessitates judicial determination
of the following cardinal legal issues:
(i) Whether the petitioner satisfies the
eligibility criteria prescribed under
Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on
Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 and
whether her claim is sustainable in law?
(ii) Whether the petitioner's application,
having been filed beyond the statutory
time line prescribed under Rule 5 of the
1996 Rules is legally maintainable, and
whether the rejection of her application on
this ground was justifiable?
(iii) Whether amendment to 1996 Rules, which
included married daughters within the
definition of dependent family members"
can be applied retrospectively to the claim
of the petitioner?
Analysis and findings:
9. There are catena of decisions of the Hon'ble
Apex Court, that clearly laid down the principles which
govern such claims. Some of which are, Shanti Sports
NC: 2025:KHC:12237-DB
Club & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors.- AIR 2010 SC
433, Chandigarh Administration vs Jagjit Singh-1995
(1) SCC 745, R. Muthukumar vs The Chairman And
Managing Director TANGEDCO & ORS., Basawaraj &
Anr vs Spl.Laq Officer-2013 (14) SCC 81, Umesh
Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Others-
(1994) 4 SCC 138. As per the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in these judgments, the very of
equality enshrined in Article is a concept clothed positively
based law. It can be invoked to enforce a claim having
sanctity of law. No direction can therefore be issued
mandating the State to perpetuate any illegality or
irregularity omitted in favour of a person, individual or
even a group of individuals as a matter of policy.
10. As regards the compassionate appointment
being sought to be claimed as a vested right for
appointment, suffice it to say that, the said right is not a
condition of service of an employee who dies in harness,
which must be given to the dependent without any kind of
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:12237-DB
scrutiny or undertaking a process of selection. It is an
appointment which is given on proper and strict scrutiny of
the various parameters as laid down with an intention to
help the family out of a sudden pecuniary financial
destitution to help it to get out of the emergent and urgent
situation, where the sole bread earner has expired leaving
the dependent-members as helpless and may be
penniless. Therefore, as held in the aforesaid judgments,
the compassionate appointment is, therefore, provided to
bail out a family of a deceased employee facing extreme
financial difficulty and but, for the employment, the family
will not be able to meet the crisis. This shall be in any case
be subject to the claim fulfilling the requirements as laid
down in the policy, instructions or rules for such a
compassionate appointment. Such policies are to give
immediate succor to the family.
11. In the present case, there is a time line
stipulated under Rule 5 of the 1996 Rules. These Rules
categorically prescribe, that an application for
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:12237-DB
compassionate appointment must be submitted within one
year from the date of death of Govt. servant. The
petitioner's father expired on 3.9.2020, whereas, the
application was submitted on 13.09.2021 clearly
transgressing the prescribed period. The Tribunal, in
consonance with express mandate of Rule 5, has correctly
concluded that, petitioner's claim was vitiated by statutory
limitation. Compassionate appointment being a policy
driven exception towards the conventional recruitment
process must be strictly regulated within the four corners
of the Government rules and any deviation could render
the scheme arbitrary and unworkable.
Compassionate Appointment is not as a matter of
Right:
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision in Bank
of Baroda and others v. Baljit Singh, reported in
(2023) 13 SCC 343, has unambiguously held, that
"compassionate appointment does not constitute a
fundamental or a statutory right but, is a discretionary
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:12237-DB
concession extended by the State to ameliorate a financial
hardship faced by the bereaved family. The appointment
must be strictly in conformity with the statutory frame
work, and any relaxation must be justified by
extraordinary circumstances which are conspicuously
absent in this case."
No exceptional circumstances justifying delay:
13. The petitioner has failed to establish any
extra-ordinary or compelling circumstances that would
warrant an exemption from the rigid statutory timeline
prescribed under Rule 5. The delay in filing the application
remains unexplained and inexcusable, thereby justifying
its rejection.
Retrospective application of amended Rules:
14. The amendment to the 1996 Rules, which
included married daughters within the definition of
dependent family members', became operative on
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:12237-DB
9.4.2021. Her father expired on 3.9.2020 i.e., before this
amendment came into effect. It is a well- entrenched
principle of statutory interpretation that, amendment
conferring new rights cannot be applied retrospectively
unless expressly stipulated by the Legislature. The
petitioner's attempt to seek the retrospective application
of the amendment is legally untenable.
Judicial precedents on retrospective application:
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Tinku v. State of
Haryana and others, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC
3292, reaffirmed that, "compassionate appointment is not
an inherent right and that amendments expanding
eligibility criteria do not operate retrospectively unless
explicitly stated." Thus, any claim based on an
amendment that post-dates the cause of action is legally
unsustainable.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:12237-DB
Strict Interpretation of Compassionate Appointment
Rules:
16. 'Compassionate Appointment' being an
exception to the general rule of recruitment based on
merit, must be construed strictly. Its primary object is to
provide financial relief to the bereaved family and not to
perpetuate hereditary employment. Since the petitioner's
father predeceased the amendment, she cannot claim its
benefits retrospectively.
17. Upon holistic appreciation of the factual and
legal aspects, this Court concludes, that the petitioner's
claim is vitiated by two fundamental infirmities:
(a) The application was filed beyond the
mandatory statutory time limit prescribed
under Rule 5 of the 1996 Rules and
thereby, rendering it legally not
maintainable.
(b) There is absence of cogent and legally
tenable evidence, that the petitioner was
wholly dependent on the deceased
Government servant at the time of his
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:12237-DB
demise as she is already married and
residing with her husband independently.
No evidence is placed about her financial
status.
18. In view of well-settled principles of law and
the binding judicial precedents governing the subject
matter, this Court, upon careful consideration, finds no
merit in the present writ petition. The grounds raised by
the petitioner fail to establish any legal infirmity or
jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court.
Furthermore, after examining the reasoning adopted by
the Tribunal, we are in broad agreement with the findings
recorded therein. Consequentially, the present writ
petition fails. However, it is made clear, that the dismissal
of this petition shall not operate as a bar to any eligible
and qualified individual from seeking appointment on
compassionate grounds strictly in accordance with the
applicable rules, regulations and the policies governing
such appointments.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:12237-DB
19. Resultantly, we pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is dismissed.
(ii) However, it is made clear that, dismissal
of this petition shall not operate as a bar
to any eligible and qualified individual
from seeking appointment on
compassionate grounds in accordance with
law.
(iii) Costs made easy.
Sd/-
(KRISHNA S DIXIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
SK/
