(BY SMT. ARATI PATIL., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-5;
SRI.GOURISH.S.KHASHAMPUR., ADVOCATE FOR R-6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT
DATED 02.06.2021, AT ANNEXURE-F, PASSED BY 6TH
RESPONDENT, BEARING SUM.NASABA/SIBBANDI/CR-15/2017-
18/245, ETC.
5 . PROJECT DIRECTOR
KALABURAGI DISTRICT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL
(DUDC) KALABURAGI 585101.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
6 . CHIEF OFFICER
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
CHITTAPUR TALAKUA,
DIST KALABURAGI 585211.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ARATI PATIL., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-5;
SRI. P.S.MALIPATIL., ADVOVATE FOR R-6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
PROCEEDINGS DATED 30.12.2017 STATE COMMITTEE
RD
PROCEEDINGS AS ANNEXURE-W PASSED BY 3 RESPONDENT,
WITH REGARD TO PETITIONER No. 1 AND 2, ETC.
IN W.P.No. 202315 OF 2021:
BETWEEN:
1 . MAREPPA, S/O LATE SHIVAYOGI
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/A DR. AMBEDKAR CHOWK,
OLD SHAHABAD, CHITTAPUR TALUK,
GULBARGA-585228.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. GEETA SAJJANSHETTY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2 . THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
VISHWESWARAIAH TOWERS,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU 560 001
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
3 . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
GULBARGA DISTRICT,
KALABURAGI 585102
4 . THE PROJECT DIRECTOR
DIST. URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL
(ZILLA NAGARBHIVRUDHI KOSH)
KALABURAGI 585102
5 . CHIEF OFFICER
TOWN MUNICIPALITY COUNCIL,
SHAHBAD, KALABURAGI 585401
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ARATI PATIL., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-4;
SRI. GOURISH S.KHASHAMPUR., ADVOCATE FOR-R-5
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYER TO ISSUE
A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT
No.NASARA/SIBBANDI/2020-21, DATED 09.06.2020
(ANNEXURE-F) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT No.5 CHIEF
OFFICER, TOWN MUNICIPALITY, SHAHBAD, KALABURAGI, THE
ENDORSEMENT No.f£ÀPÉÆÃ/¹§âA¢-2/193/2019-20/2077 DATED
21.03.2020 (ANNEXURE-E) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT No.4
PLANNING DIRECTOR, DUDC, KALABURAGI AND
COMMUNICATION BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN
DEPARTMENT 1ST RESPONDENT ADDRESSSED TO 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 15.03.2019 (ANNEXURE-G) BEARING
No.£ÀCE 65 nJAJ¸ï2017 DATED:15.03.2019 AS THE SAME IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IRRATIONAL ILLEGAL AND VIOLATIVE OF
ARTICLE 14 AND 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., ETC.
IN W.P.No. 200213 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
1 . MALLIKARJUN S/O LATE JAGANATH
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/A HANUMAN NAGAR,
BHALKI TALUK,
BHALKI,BIDAR 585328
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. GEETA SAJJAN SHETTY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU 560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2 . THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
VISHWESWARAIAH TOWERS,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU 560001
3 . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BIDAR DISTRICT,
BIDAR 585401
4 . PROJECT DIRECTOR
BIDAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL,
BIDAR 585401
5 . CHIEF OFFICER
TOWN MUNICIPALITY COUNCIL,
BHALKI 585401
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ARATI PATIL., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-4;
SRI. P.S.MALIPATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R-5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT
No.MUANB/SIBANDI/CR-09/2018-19/990 TO 991 DATED
13.02.2020 (ANNEXURE J) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT No.5
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
CHIEFF OFFICER., TOWN MUNICIPALITY BHALKI, BIDAR AND
THE ENDORSEMENT No.MUAN/AIBANDI/CR-16/2018-19 DATED
21.01.2020 (ANNEXURE H ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT No.4
PLANNING DIRECTOR, TOWN MUNICIPALITY BIDAR AS THE
SAME IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IRRATIONAL, ILLEGAL AND
VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 AND 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA., ETC.
IN W.P.No. 200548 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. BABU,
S/O LATE MAHADEV,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT CHUNNA BHATTI,
SHAHABAD, CHITTARPUR TALUK,
GULBARGARA-585228.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. GEETA SAJJANSHETTY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU 560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2 . THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
VISHWESWARAIAH TOWERS,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU 560001
3 . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
GULBARGA DISTRICT,
KALBURGI 585401
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
4 . PROJECT DIRECTOR
DIST. URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL,
(ZILLA NAGARABHIRUDHI KOSH)
KALABURAGI-585102
5 . CHIEF OFFICER
TOWN MUNICIPALITY COUNCIL,
SHAHBAD, KALBURGI-585401
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT ARATI PATIL., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-4;
SRI.GOURISH.S.KHASHAMPUR., ADVOCATE FOR R-5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHT EH ENDORSEMENT
No.NASASA/SIBBANDI/2020-21 DATED 09.06.2020
(ANNEXURE-F) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT No.5 CHIEF
OFFICER, TOWN MUNICIPALITY, SHAHABAD, KALABURAGI,
THE ENDORSEMENT No. ¸ÀASÉå 230435/mˤà EJ¸ïn/«Ä¸À¯ÉÃ/2020
DATED:16.03.2020 (ANNEXURE-E) ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT No2 DIRECTOR BANGALORE AND
COMMUNICATION BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URGAN
DEPARTMENT 1ST RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 15.03.2019 (ANNEXURE-G), BEARING
No.¸ÀASÉå £ÀCE 65 nJAJ¸ï 2017 AS THE SAME IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IRRATIONAL ILLEGAL AND VIOLATIVE OF
ARTICLE 14 AND 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ETC.
IN W.P.No. 200558 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.SHIVAKUMAR.,
S/O LATE SHANKAR HALHALLE
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT BHALKI TALUK,
BHALKI. BIDAR-585401.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. GEETA SAJJANSHETTY., ADVOCATE)
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU 560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2 . THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
VISHWESWARAIAH TOWERS,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU 560001
3 . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BIDAR DISTRICT,
BIDAR 585401
4 . PROJECT DIRECTOR
BIDAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL (BUDC),
BIDAR 585401
5 . CHIEF OFFICER
TOWN MUNICIPALITY COUNCIL,
BHALKI 585401
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ARATI PATIL., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-4;
SRI. GOURISH.S.KHASHAMPUR., ADVOCATE FOR R-5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT
No.MUANB/SIBBANDI/CR-06/2018-19/992 TO 993 DATED
13.02.2020 (ANNEXURE-F) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT No.5
CHIEF OFFICER, TOWN MUNICIPALITY, BHALKI, BIDAR, THE
ENDORSEMENT No.MUAN/SIBBANDI/CR-17/2018-19/610
DATED 21.01.2020 (ANNEXURE-E) ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT No.4 PLANNING DIRECTOR, TOWN
MUNICIPALITY, BIDAR AND COMMUNICATION BY THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEPARTMENT 1ST RESPONDENT
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
ADDRESS TO 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.03.2019 BEARING
No. ¸ÀASÉå:£ÀCE 65 nJAJ¸ï 2017 (ANNEXURE-G) AS THE SAME IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IRRATIONAL, ILLEGAL AND VIOLATIVE
OF ARTICLE 14 AND 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.,
IN W.P.No. 200592 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
1. AZURODDIN,
S/O LATE FAIMODDIN,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT 2-1-353, SAYED GALLI,
OLD TOWN, BHALKI TOWN,
BIDAR-585 328.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. GEETA SAJJANSHETTY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU 560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2 . THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
VISHWESWARAIAH TOWERS,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU 560001
3 . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BIDAR DISTRICT,
BIDAR 585401
4 . PROJECT DIRECTOR
BIDAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL (BUDC),
BIDAR 585401
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
5 . CHIEF OFFICER
TOWN MUNICIPALITY COUNCIL,
BHALKI 585401
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ARATI PATIL., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-4;
SRI. GOURISH.S.KHASHAMPUR., ADVOCATE FOR R-5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT
No.MUANB/SIBANDI/CR-08/2018-19, DATED 13.02.2020
(ANNEXURE-F) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT No.5 CHIEF
OFFICER, TOWN MUNICIPALITY, BHALKI, BIDAR, THE
EDNROSEMENT No.MUAN/SIBANDI/CR-18/2018-19 DATED
21.01.2020 (ANNEXURE-E) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT No.4
PROJECT DIRECTOR, BUDC, BIDAR AND COMMUNICATION BY
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEPARTMENT 1ST
RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
15.03.2019 (ANNEXURE-G) AS THE ASME ARE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IRRATIONAL, ILLEGAL AND VIOLATIVE
OF ARTICLE 14 AND 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.,
ETC.
IN W.P.No. 200737 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
1. UMABAI, W/O AMBAJI,
AGE:46 YEARS, OCC:UNEMPLOYED
H.No.5-24, SARDAR CHOWK POST,
CHITGUPPA TALUKA,
DISTRICT BIDAR 585 412.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. GEETA SAJJAN SHETTY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU 560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2 . THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
VISHWESWARAIAH TOWERS,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU 560001
3 . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BIDAR DISTRICT,
BIDAR 585401
4 . PROJECT DIRECTOR
BIDAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL (BUDC),
BIDAR 585401
5 . CHIEF OFFICER
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
CHITGUPPA, BIDAR-585412.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ARATI PATIL., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-4;
SRI. GOURISH.S.KHASHAMPUR., ADVOCATE FOR R-5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH AND
SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 07.01.2020 AT
ANNEXURE J BEARING No.PUSACHI/SIBBANDI/04/2017-
18/566 DATED 7.1.2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT No.5,
ETC.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 17.01.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
CAV ORDER
IN W.P.NO.201675/2021:
1. The petitioner is the son of Dileep Shindhe (@Dileep
kumar), who was appointed as a helper in the year
1995 and, while in service he expired on 17.03.2020.
2. The claim of the petitioner's father for regularization
has been rejected on the ground that an order of
regularization cannot be passed after the death of
the daily wage employee.
3. It is to be stated here that in W.P.No.202315/2021,
W.P.No.200213/2022, W.P.No.200548/2022,
W.P.No.200558/2022, W.P.No.200592/2022,
W.P.No.200737/2022, the State Government in
respect of similarly placed employees had in fact
regularized the services of daily wage employees
after they had passed away and, in those cases, this
Court has concluded that by virtue of their
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
regularization, albeit even after the death, it would
render them as regular employee as on the date of
the death of the employee and, as a consequence,
their children would be entitled for being appointed
on a compassionate grounds.
4. Since the State Government has in those cases taken
the decision to regularize similarly placed employees,
who had also passed away as on the date of their
regularization, it is clear that regularisation is
permissible even after the death of the employee. It
is to be stated here that the benefit of regularisation
is granted for services rendered and these benefits
can be granted retrospectively and has in fact been
granted to similarly placed deceased employees. In
this view of the matter the rejection of the
petitioner's father's claim for regularization is
untenable and the claim for regularisation cannot be
denied.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
5. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the father
of the petitioner was appointed in the year 1995 and
worked continuously for more than 25 years till he
died on 17.03.2020.
6. This Court in W.P.No.86327/2012 has taken the view
that the decision rendered in Umadevi's case1
would be inapplicable in the light of the subsequent
judgments of the Apex Court in which Umadevi's
case has been explained and distinguished.
Furthermore, in the light of Clause 13C of the
governor's order issued under Art 371J, persons who
have completed 10 years of service will have to be
protected.
7. In that view of the matter, the impugned
endorsement is quashed and a direction shall be
issued to the respondents to regularize the services
of the petitioner's father i.e., Late Dileep Shinde with
State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
effect from 05.01.2005. As a consequence, all
consequential benefits shall also be paid to the legal
heirs of Dileep Shinde.
8. The consequential benefits would also include the
entitlement of the legal heirs of the deceased Dileep
Shinde to be considered for compassionate
appointment as has been held in W.P.No.
W.P.No.202315/2021, W.P.No.200213/2022,
W.P.No.200548/2022, W.P.No.200558/2022,
W.P.No.200592/2022, W.P.No.200737/2022
9. This writ petition is accordingly allowed.
IN W.P.NO.201775/2021:
1. The petitioner who is the son of Somashekarayya has
presented this writ petition challenging an order by
which the Authorities have rejected the claim of his
father for being regularized.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
2. The Directorate of Municipal Administration has taken
the view that the appointment of Somashekarayya
cannot be regularized since he had not been
appointed against the sanctioned posts and, in the
light of the fact that the parameters laid out
Umadevi's case 2 has not been complied with.
3. The material on record indicates that the father of
the petitioner Somashekarayya was appointed on
31.12.1987 in the Rawoor Mandal Panchayath and,
he was thereafter transferred to Kamarwadi Gram
Panchayath and to Wadi Gram Panchayath in the
year 1994.
4. In the year 2002, the Wadi Gram Panchayat was
upgraded to a Town Municipal Council and, in this
Town Municipal Council, the services of the petitioner
was continued till he was transferred to Chittapur.
However, when the Officers of Municipality were
State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
directed to implement the provisions of the
Karnataka Daily Wages Employees Welfare Act, 2012
and had prepared the list of eligible employees, the
father of the petitioner passed away on 23.08.2015.
5. The Director of Municipal Administration has
thereafter rejected the claim for regularization
though the Chief Officer of the Town Municipal
Council had verified the service tenure of the
petitioner's father and had recommended his
regularization. As a consequence, the petitioner is
before this Court challenging the said endorsement
and also for grant of all consequential benefits.
6. As stated above, the father of the petitioner was
appointed in the year 1987 and continued in service
till he passed away in the year 2015.In other words,
the father of the petitioner had rendered 28 years of
service, initially to the Gram Panchayath and,
thereafter, to the Wadi Town Municipal Council.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
7. This Court in W.P.No.86327/2012, after considering
similar contentions advanced regarding the
applicability of Umadevi's case has relied upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the Jaggo's
case3 and Sripal's case4 and also considering
Clause 13C of the Karnataka Public Employment
(Reservation in Appointment for Hyderabad
Karnataka Region) Order, 2013 (hereinafter referred
to as the "Order") has concluded that the decision
rendered in Umadevi's case cannot be used to reject
the claim of a person, who has rendered more than
10 years of service.
8. In the light of the said judgment and on the
reasoning of the same judgment, the impugned
order cannot be sustained and the same is
accordingly quashed.
Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC Online SC 3826.
Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, Civil Appeal No.8157 of
2024 dd.31.01.2025
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
9. A direction is issued to the respondents to regularize
the services of the petitioner's father with effect from
the date on which the petitioner's father completed
10 years of service and, as a consequence, also pay
to deceased Somashekarayya's family all the
consequential benefits that arise out of his
regularization.
10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed.
IN W.P.NO.202315/2022:
1. On 30.03.1996, the father of the petitioner Sri
Shivayogi was appointed as a PauraKarmika in
Shahbad Town Municipal Council.
2. On 24.06.2006, Shivayogi passed away while in
service. As on the date of his death, he had rendered
about 10 years of service as a PauraKarmika.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
3. On 01.01.2020, the petitioner herein i.e., Shivayogi's
son made an application seeking for appointment on
compassionate grounds.
4. On 29.12.2017, the Deputy Commissioner passed an
order regularizing the services of Shivayogi with
effect from 30.03.2006. This order of regularization
was based on the order passed in Umadevi's case5.
It is therefore clear that as on 30.03.2006, Shivayogi
was a regular employee of the Government.
5. However, unfortunately, Shivayogi was not able to
enjoy the benefits of being a regular employee during
his life time since his services were regularized
eleven years after his death.
6. As already stated above, the petitioner being the son
of Shivayogi had filed an application seeking for
appointment on compassionate grounds immediately
on the death of Shivayogi.
State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
7. This request of the petitioner was considered by the
Municipality and they sought for approval of
appointment in favour of the petitioner. The said
request was forwarded to the Director of Municipal
Administration on 28.01.2020. However, the Director
of Municipal Administration addressed a
communication dated 06.03.2020 calling upon the
Deputy Commissioner to take action in accordance
the letter of the Government dated 15.03.2019.
8. The contents of this letter dated 15.03.2019 are
reproduced as under for the sake of clarity:
"ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ,
«µÀAiÀÄ: gÁdåzÀ £ÀUÀgÀ ¸ÀܽÃAiÀÄ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ¼À°è ¢£ÀUÆ
À °/¸ÀªÀiÁ£À PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ
¸ÀªÀiÁ£À ªÉÃvÀ£ÀzÀrAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ¤ªÀWÀ»¸ÀÄvÀÛzÀÄÝ, ¸ÉêÉ
¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƼÀÄîªÀ ªÉÆzÀ®qsÀ ªÀÄÈvÀgÁzÀ
£ËPÀgÀgÀCªÀÄ®A©vÀjUÉC£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀDzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É £ÉêÀÄPÁw
ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀ §UÉÎ.
G¯ÉèÃR: 1. vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå:¥Ë¤/¹§âA¢/¢é¸ÉøÀ/¹Dgï
01/2016-17 ¢£ÁAPÀ 16.02.2017.
2. DyðPÀ E¯ÁPÉ (ªÉZÀÑ-3&9)AiÀÄn¥Ààt ¢£ÁAPÀ
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
28.01.2019.
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, G¯ÉèÃTvÀvÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è£À
¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀgÀUÀt¸À®Ä CªÀPÁ±À«®èªÉAzÀÄDyðPÀE¯ÁSÉAiÀÄÄG¯ÉèÃR 2
gÀn¥ÀàtÂAiÀÄ°è ¤ÃrgÀĪÀC©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß wgÀ¸ÀÌj¹zÉ
JAzÀÄvÀªÀÄäUÉ w½¸À®Ä ¤zÉÃð²®ànÖzÉÝãÉ."
9. As could be seen from the said letter, the request of
the Municipality to offer an appointment to the
petitioner was rejected based on the communication
dated 15.03.2019 which was in turn based on the
communication of the Finance Department dated
28.01.2019. The petitioner, being aggrieved by this,
is before this Court.
10. At the outset, it is to be stated here that the moment
an order of regularization was passed by the
Government pursuant to the order of the Apex Court
with effect from 30.03.2006, Shivayogi would
become, in law, a regular employee of the
Government.
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
11. It cannot be in dispute that if an employee of the
Government were to pass away while in service,
Rules have been framed to consider the case of his
eligible family members for appointment on
compassionate grounds.
12. Thus, if Shivayogi's service was regularized during
his life time i.e., on 30.03.2006 and if he had died
subsequently on 24.06.2006, obviously, the
petitioner being his son would be entitled to make an
application and request that his case be considered
for appointment on compassionate grounds.
13. In fact, a coordinate bench of this Court, in Sagar's
case6 has held, in identical circumstances, that if the
services of the deceased paura karmika was
regularized after his death, a compassionate
appointment granted to his legal representative was
valid and was justified. It is therefore clear that in an
Sagar v. State of Karnataka and others (WP No. 200122/2021)
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
identical case, the child of a deceased employee
whose services were regularized subsequently after
his death, this Court has upheld the compassionate
appointment. The State has in fact accepted the aid
order and has not preferred any appeal. The
petitioner being similarly placed would also be
entitled to the same benefit.
14. To reiterate, merely because Shivayogi passed away
about eleven years prior to the order of
regularization that would not take away the fact that
Shivayogi was, in law, a regular employee of the
Government when he passed away on 24.06.2006.
Since the authorities have proceeded to reject the
claim on the ground that Shivayogi had passed away
before the order of regularization and hence, his son
cannot be considered for appointment on
compassionate ground, obviously, the reasoning
would be untenable.
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
15. Consequently, the case of the petitioner would have
to be considered for appointment on compassionate
grounds in terms of the Karnataka Civil Services
(Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules,
2021. The concerned authorities shall undertake the
said exercise and complete the same within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
16. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part.
IN W.P.NO.200213/2022:
1. On 24.11.1994, the father of the petitioner Sri
Jaganath was appointed as a PauraKarmika in Bhalki
Town Municipal Council.
2. On 18.06.2014, Jaganath passed away while in service.
As on the date of his death, he had rendered about 20
years of service as a PauraKarmika.
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
3. On 16.02.2015, the petitioner herein i.e., Jaganath's
son made an application seeking for appointment on
compassionate grounds.
4. On 04.09.2017, the Deputy Commissioner passed an
order regularizing the services of Jaganath with effect
from 07.11.2004. This order of regularization was
based on the order passed in Umadevi's case7. It is
therefore clear that as on 07.11.2004, Jaganath was a
regular employee of the Government.
5. However, unfortunately, Jaganath was not able to
enjoy the benefits of being a regular employee during
his life time since his services were regularized three
years after his death.
6. As already stated above, the petitioner being the son
of Jaganath had filed an application seeking for
appointment on compassionate grounds immediately
on the death of Jaganath.
State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
7. This request of the petitioner was considered by the
Municipality and they sought for approval of
appointment in favour of the petitioner. The said
request was forwarded to the Director of Municipal
Administration on 07.07.2018. However, the Director
of Municipal Administration addressed a communication
dated 30.10.2019 calling upon the Deputy
Commissioner to take action in accordance the letter of
the Government dated 15.03.2019.
8. The contents of this letter dated 15.03.2019 are
reproduced as under for the sake of clarity:
"ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ,
«µÀAiÀÄ: gÁdåzÀ £ÀUÀgÀ ¸ÀܽÃAiÀÄ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ¼À°è ¢£ÀUÀÆ°/¸ÀªÀiÁ£À
PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À ªÉÃvÀ£ÀzÀrAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ¤ªÀWÀ»¸ÀÄvÀÛzÀÄÝ,
¸ÉÃªÉ ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƼÀÄîªÀ ªÉÆzÀ®qsÀ ªÀÄÈvÀgÁzÀ
£ËPÀgÀgÀCªÀÄ®A©vÀjUÉC£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀDzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄïÉ
£ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀ §UÉÎ.
G¯ÉèÃR: 1. vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå:¥Ë¤/¹§âA¢/¢é¸ÉøÀ/¹Dgï
01/2016-17 ¢£ÁAPÀ 16.02.2017.
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
2. DyðPÀ E¯ÁPÉ (ªÉZÀÑ-3&9) AiÀÄn¥Ààt ¢£ÁAPÀ
28.01.2019.
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, G¯ÉèÃTvÀvÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è£À
¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀgÀUÀt¸À®Ä CªÀPÁ±À«®èªÉAzÀÄDyðPÀE¯ÁSÉAiÀÄÄG¯ÉèÃR 2
gÀn¥ÀàtÂAiÀÄ°è ¤ÃrgÀĪÀC©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß wgÀ¸ÀÌj¹zÉ
JAzÀÄvÀªÀÄäUÉ w½¸À®Ä ¤zÉÃð²®ànÖzÉÝãÉ."
9. As could be seen from the said letter, the request of
the Municipality to offer an appointment to the
petitioner was rejected based on the communication
dated 15.03.2019 which was in turn based on the
communication of the Finance Department dated
28.01.2019. The petitioner, being aggrieved by this,
is before this Court.
10. At the outset, it is to be stated here that the moment
an order of regularization was passed by the
Government pursuant to the order of the Apex Court
with effect from 24.11.2004, Jaganath would
become, in law, a regular employee of the
Government.
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
11. It cannot be in dispute that if an employee of the
Government were to pass away while in service,
Rules have been framed to consider the case of his
eligible family members for appointment on
compassionate grounds.
12. Thus, if Jaganath's service was regularized during his
life time i.e., on 07.11.2004 and if he had died
subsequently on 18.06.2014, obviously, the
petitioner being his son would be entitled to make an
application and request that his case be considered
for appointment on compassionate grounds.
13. In fact, a co-ordinate bench of this Court, in Sagar's
case8 has held, in identical circumstances, that if the
services of the deceased paura karmika was
regularized after his death, a compassionate
appointment granted to his legal representative was
valid and was justified. It is therefore clear that in an
identical case, the child of a deceased employee
Sagar v. State of Karnataka and others (WP No. 200122/2021)
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
whose services were regularised subsequently after
his death, this Court has upheld the compassionate
appointment. The State has in fact accepted the aid
order and has not preferred any appeal. The
petitioner being similarly placed would also be
entitled to the same benefit.
14. To reiterate, Merely because Jaganath passed away
about three years prior to the order of
regularization that would not take away the fact that
Jaganath was, in law, a regular employee of the
Government when he passed away on 18.06.2014.
Since the authorities have proceeded to reject the
claim on the ground that Jaganath had passed away
before the order of regularization and hence, his son
cannot be considered for appointment on
compassionate ground, obviously, the reasoning
would be untenable.
15. Consequently, the case of the petitioner would have
to be considered for appointment on compassionate
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
grounds in terms of the Karnataka Civil Services
(Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules,
2021. The concerned authorities shall undertake the
said exercise and complete the same within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
16. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part.
IN W.P.NO.200548/2022:
1. On 30.03.1996, the father of the petitioner Sri
Mahadev was appointed as a PauraKarmika in
Shahbad Town Municipal Council along with 39
others, in respect of 40 vacancies that were
available, on NMR basis.
2. On 23.06.2011, Mahadev passed away while in
service. As on the date of his death, he had rendered
about 15 years of service as a PauraKarmika.
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
3. On 11.04.2012, the petitioner herein i.e., Mahadev's
son made an application seeking for appointment on
compassionate grounds.
4. On 29.12.2017, the Deputy Commissioner passed an
order regularizing the services of Mahadev with effect
from 30.03.2006. This order of regularization was
based on the order passed in Umadevi's case9. It is
therefore clear that as on 30.03.2006, Mahadev was
a regular employee of the Government.
5. However, unfortunately, Mahadev was not able to
enjoy the benefits of being a regular employee during
his life time since his services were regularized five
years after his death.
6. As already stated above, the petitioner being the son
of Mahadev had filed an application seeking for
appointment on compassionate grounds immediately
on the death of Mahadev.
State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
7. This request of the petitioner was considered by the
Municipality and they sought for approval of
appointment in favour of the petitioner. The said
request was forwarded to the Director of Municipal
Administration on 28.01.2020. However, the Director
of Municipal Administration addressed a
communication dated 06.03.2020 calling upon the
Deputy Commissioner to take action in accordance
the letter of the Government dated 15.03.2019.
8. The contents of this letter dated 15.03.2019 are
reproduced as under for the sake of clarity:
"ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ,
«µÀAiÀÄ: gÁdåzÀ £ÀUÀgÀ ¸ÀܽÃAiÀÄ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ¼À°è ¢£ÀUÆ
À °/¸ÀªÀiÁ£À PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ
¸ÀªÀiÁ£À ªÉÃvÀ£ÀzÀrAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ¤ªÀWÀ»¸ÀÄvÀÛzÀÄÝ, ¸ÉêÉ
¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƼÀÄîªÀ ªÉÆzÀ®qsÀ ªÀÄÈvÀgÁzÀ
£ËPÀgÀgÀCªÀÄ®A©vÀjUÉC£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀDzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É £ÉêÀÄPÁw
ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀ §UÉÎ.
G¯ÉèÃR: 1. vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå:¥Ë¤/¹§âA¢/¢é¸ÉøÀ/¹Dgï
01/2016-17 ¢£ÁAPÀ 16.02.2017.
2. DyðPÀ E¯ÁPÉ (ªÉZÀÑ-3&9)AiÀÄn¥Ààt ¢£ÁAPÀ
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
28.01.2019.
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, G¯ÉèÃTvÀvÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è£À
¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀgÀUÀt¸À®Ä CªÀPÁ±À«®èªÉAzÀÄDyðPÀE¯ÁSÉAiÀÄÄG¯ÉèÃR
2 gÀn¥ÀàtÂAiÀÄ°è ¤ÃrgÀĪÀC©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
wgÀ¸ÀÌj¹zÉ JAzÀÄvÀªÀÄäUÉ w½¸À®Ä ¤zÉÃð²®ànÖzÉÝãÉ."
9. As could be seen from the said letter, the request of
the Municipality to offer an appointment to the
petitioner was rejected based on the communication
dated 15.03.2019 which was in turn based on the
communication of the Finance Department dated
28.01.2019. The petitioner, being aggrieved by this,
is before this Court.
10. At the outset, it is to be stated here that the moment
an order of regularization was passed by the
Government pursuant to the order of the Apex Court
with effect from 30.03.2006, Mahadev would
become, in law, a regular employee of the
Government.
11. It cannot be in dispute that if an employee of the
Government were to pass away while in service,
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
Rules have been framed to consider the case of his
eligible family members for appointment on
compassionate grounds.
12. Thus, if Mahadev's service was regularized during his
life time i.e., on 30.03.2006 and if he had died
subsequently on 20.03.2011, obviously, the
petitioner being his son would be entitled to make an
application and request that his case be considered
for appointment on compassionate grounds.
13. In fact, a coordinate bench of this Court, in Sagar's
case10 has held, in identical circumstances, that if
the services of the deceased paura karmika was
regularized after his death, a compassionate
appointment granted to his legal representative was
valid and was justified. It is therefore clear that in an
identical case, the child of a deceased employee
whose services were regularised subsequently after
his death, this Court has upheld the compassionate
Sagar v. State of Karnataka and others (WP No. 200122/2021)
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
appointment. The State has in fact accepted the aid
order and has not preferred any appeal. The
petitioner being similarly placed would also be
entitled to the same benefit.
14. To reiterate, Merely because Mahadev passed away
about six years prior to the order of regularization
that would not take away the fact that Mahadev was,
in law, a regular employee of the Government when
he passed away on 20.03.2011. Since the authorities
have proceeded to reject the claim on the ground
that Mahadev had passed away before the order of
regularization and hence, his son cannot be
considered for appointment on compassionate
ground, obviously, the reasoning would be untenable.
15. Consequently, the case of the petitioner would have
to be considered for appointment on compassionate
grounds in terms of the Karnataka Civil Services
(Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules,
2021. The concerned authorities shall undertake the
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
said exercise and complete the same within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
16. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part.
IN W.P.NO.200558/2022:
1. On 07.11.1994, the father of the petitioner Sri
Shankar was appointed as a PauraKarmika in Bhalki
Town Municipal Council.
2. On 25.06.2005, Shankar passed away while in
service. As on the date of his death, he had rendered
about 11 years of service as a PauraKarmika.
3. On 13.06.2016, the petitioner herein i.e., Shankar's
son made an application seeking for appointment on
compassionate grounds.
4. On 04.09.2017, the Deputy Commissioner passed an
order regularizing the services of Shankar with effect
from 07.11.2004. This order of regularization was
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
based on the order passed in Umadevi's case11. It
is therefore clear that as on 07.11.2004, Shankar
was a regular employee of the Government.
5. However, unfortunately, Shankar was not able to
enjoy the benefits of being a regular employee during
his life time since his services were regularized
twelve years after his death.
6. As already stated above, the petitioner being the son
of Shankar had filed an application seeking for
appointment on compassionate grounds immediately
on the death of Shankar.
7. This request of the petitioner was considered by the
Municipality and they sought for approval of
appointment in favour of the petitioner. The said
request was forwarded to the Director of Municipal
Administration on 24.09.2018. However, the Director
of Municipal Administration addressed a
communication dated 30.10.2019 calling upon the
State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
Deputy Commissioner to take action in accordance
the letter of the Government dated 15.03.2019.
8. The contents of this letter dated 15.03.2019 are
reproduced as under for the sake of clarity:
"ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ,
«µÀAiÀÄ: gÁdåzÀ £ÀUÀgÀ ¸ÀܽÃAiÀÄ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ¼À°è ¢£ÀUÀÆ°/¸ÀªÀiÁ£À
PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À ªÉÃvÀ£ÀzÀrAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ¤ªÀWÀ»¸ÀÄvÀÛzÀÄÝ,
¸ÉÃªÉ ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƼÀÄîªÀ ªÉÆzÀ®qsÀ ªÀÄÈvÀgÁzÀ
£ËPÀgÀgÀCªÀÄ®A©vÀjUÉC£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀDzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄïÉ
£ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀ §UÉÎ.
G¯ÉèÃR: 1. vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå:¥Ë¤/¹§âA¢/¢é¸ÉøÀ/¹Dgï
01/2016-17 ¢£ÁAPÀ 16.02.2017.
2. DyðPÀ E¯ÁPÉ (ªÉZÀÑ-3&9)AiÀÄn¥Ààt ¢£ÁAPÀ
28.01.2019.
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, G¯ÉèÃTvÀvÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è£À
¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀgÀUÀt¸À®Ä CªÀPÁ±À«®èªÉAzÀÄDyðPÀE¯ÁSÉAiÀÄÄG¯ÉèÃR
2 gÀn¥ÀàtÂAiÀÄ°è ¤ÃrgÀĪÀC©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
wgÀ¸ÀÌj¹zÉ JAzÀÄvÀªÀÄäUÉ w½¸À®Ä ¤zÉÃð²®ànÖzÉÝãÉ."
9. As could be seen from the said letter, the request of
the Municipality to offer an appointment to the
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
petitioner was rejected based on the communication
dated 15.03.2019 which was in turn based on the
communication of the Finance Department dated
28.01.2019. The petitioner, being aggrieved by this,
is before this Court.
10. At the outset, it is to be stated here that the moment
an order of regularization was passed by the
Government pursuant to the order of the Apex Court
with effect from 07.11.2004, Shankar would become,
in law, a regular employee of the Government.
11. It cannot be in dispute that if an employee of the
Government were to pass away while in service,
Rules have been framed to consider the case of his
eligible family members for appointment on
compassionate grounds.
12. In fact, a coordinate bench of this Court, in Sagar's
case12 has held, in identical circumstances, that if
the services of the deceased paura karmika was
Sagar v. State of Karnataka and others (WP No. 200122/2021)
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
regularized after his death, a compassionate
appointment granted to his legal representative was
valid and was justified. It is therefore clear that in an
identical case, the child of a deceased employee
whose services were regularised subsequently after
his death, this Court has upheld the compassionate
appointment. The State has in fact accepted the aid
order and has not preferred any appeal. The
petitioner being similarly placed would also be
entitled to the same benefit.
13. Thus, if Shankar's service was regularized during his
life time i.e., on 07.11.2004 and if he had died
subsequently on 25.06.2005, obviously, the
petitioner being his son would be entitled to make an
application and request that his case be considered
for appointment on compassionate grounds.
14. To reiterate, Merely because Shankar passed away
about twelve years prior to the order of
regularization that would not take away the fact that
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
Shankar was, in law, a regular employee of the
Government when he passed away on 25.06.2005.
Since the authorities have proceeded to reject the
claim on the ground that Shankar had passed away
before the order of regularization and hence, his son
cannot be considered for appointment on
compassionate ground, obviously, the reasoning
would be untenable.
15. Consequently, the case of the petitioner would have
to be considered for appointment on compassionate
grounds in terms of the Karnataka Civil Services
(Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules,
2021. The concerned authorities shall undertake the
said exercise and complete the same within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
16. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part.
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
IN W.P.NO.200592/2022:
1. On 24.11.1994, the father of the petitioner Sri
Fayemodden was appointed as a Water Men in Bhalki
Town Municipal Council.
2. On 17.10.2005, Fayemodden passed away while in
service. As on the date of his death, he had rendered
about 11 years of service as a PauraKarmika.
3. On 31.06.2016, the petitioner herein
i.e.,Fayemodden's son made an application seeking
for appointment on compassionate grounds.
4. On 04.09.2017, the Deputy Commissioner passed an
order regularizing the services of Fayemodden with
effect from 07.11.2004. This order of regularization
was based on the order passed in Umadevi's13 case.
It is therefore clear that as on 07.11.2004,
Fayemodden was a regular employee of the
Government.
State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
5. However, unfortunately, Fayemodden was not able to
enjoy the benefits of being a regular employee during
his life time since his services were regularized
twelve years after his death.
6. As already stated above, the petitioner being the son
of Fayemodden had filed an application seeking for
appointment on compassionate grounds immediately
on the death of Fayemodden.
7. This request of the petitioner was considered by the
Municipality and they sought for approval of
appointment in favour of the petitioner. The said
request was forwarded to the Director of Municipal
Administration on 24.09.2018. However, the Director
of Municipal Administration addressed a
communication dated 30.10.2019 calling upon the
Deputy Commissioner to take action in accordance
the letter of the Government dated 15.03.2019.
8. The contents of this letter dated 15.03.2019 are
reproduced as under for the sake of clarity:
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
"ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ,
«µÀAiÀÄ: gÁdåzÀ £ÀUÀgÀ ¸ÀܽÃAiÀÄ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ¼À°è
¢£ÀUÀÆ°/¸ÀªÀiÁ£À PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À
ªÉÃvÀ£ÀzÀrAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ¤ªÀWÀ»¸ÀÄvÀÛzÀÄÝ, ¸ÉêÉ
¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƼÀÄîªÀ ªÉÆzÀ®qsÀ ªÀÄÈvÀgÁzÀ
£ËPÀgÀgÀCªÀÄ®A©vÀjUÉC£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀDzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄïÉ
£ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀ §UÉÎ.
G¯ÉèÃR: 1. vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå:¥Ë¤/¹§âA¢/¢é¸ÉøÀ/¹Dgï
01/2016-17 ¢£ÁAPÀ 16.02.2017.
2. DyðPÀ E¯ÁPÉ (ªÉZÀÑ-3&9)AiÀÄn¥Ààt ¢£ÁAPÀ
28.01.2019.
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, G¯ÉèÃTvÀvÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è£À
¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀgÀUÀt¸À®Ä CªÀPÁ±À«®èªÉAzÀÄDyðPÀE¯ÁSÉAiÀÄÄG¯ÉèÃR
2 gÀn¥ÀàtÂAiÀÄ°è ¤ÃrgÀĪÀC©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
wgÀ¸ÀÌj¹zÉ JAzÀÄvÀªÀÄäUÉ w½¸À®Ä ¤zÉÃð²®ànÖzÉÝãÉ."
9. As could be seen from the said letter, the request of
the Municipality to offer an appointment to the
petitioner was rejected based on the communication
dated 15.03.2019 which was in turn based on the
communication of the Finance Department dated
- 47 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
28.01.2019. The petitioner, being aggrieved by this,
is before this Court.
10. At the outset, it is to be stated here that the moment
an order of regularization was passed by the
Government pursuant to the order of the Apex Court
with effect from 24.11.2004, Fayemoddenwould
become, in law, a regular employee of the
Government.
11. It cannot be in dispute that if an employee of the
Government were to pass away while in service,
Rules have been framed to consider the case of his
eligible family members for appointment on
compassionate grounds.
12. Thus, if Fayemodden's service was regularized during
his life time i.e., on 07.11.2004 and if he had died
subsequently on 17.10.2005, obviously, the
petitioner being his son would be entitled to make an
application and request that his case be considered
for appointment on compassionate grounds.
- 48 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
13. In fact, a coordinate bench of this Court, in Sagar's
case14 has held, in identical circumstances, that if
the services of the deceased paura karmika was
regularized after his death, a compassionate
appointment granted to his legal representative was
valid and was justified. It is therefore clear that in an
identical case, the child of a deceased employee
whose services were regularized subsequently after
his death, this Court has upheld the compassionate
appointment. The State has in fact accepted the aid
order and has not preferred any appeal. The
petitioner being similarly placed would also be
entitled to the same benefit.
14. To reiterate, merely because Fayemodden passed
away about twelve years prior to the order of
regularization that would not take away the fact that
Fayemodden was, in law, a regular employee of the
Government when he passed away on 17.10.2005.
Sagar v. State of Karnataka and others (WP No. 200122/2021)
- 49 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
Since the authorities have proceeded to reject the
claim on the ground thatFayemodden had passed
away before the order of regularization and hence,
his son cannot be considered for appointment on
compassionate ground, obviously, the reasoning
would be untenable.
15. Consequently, the case of the petitioner would have
to be considered for appointment on compassionate
grounds in terms of the Karnataka Civil Services
(Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules,
2021. The concerned authorities shall undertake the
said exercise and complete the same within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
16. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part.
IN W.P.NO.200737/2022:
- 50 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
1. On 01.06.1992, the husband of the petitioner Sri
Ambaji was appointed as a PauraKarmika in
Chitguppa Town Municipal Council.
2. On 14.06.2006, Ambaji passed away while in service.
As on the date of his death, he had rendered about
14 years of service as a PauraKarmika.
3. On 19.10.2006, the petitioner herein i.e., Ambaji's
wife made an application seeking for appointment on
compassionate grounds.
4. On 22.06.2016, the Deputy Commissioner passed an
order regularizing the services of Ambaji with effect
from 11.05.2002. This order of regularization was
based on the order passed in Umadevi's15 case. It is
therefore clear that as on 11.05.2002, Ambaji was a
regular employee of the Government.
5. However, unfortunately, Ambaji was not able to
enjoy the benefits of being a regular employee during
State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1
- 51 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
his life time since his services were regularized ten
years after his death.
6. As already stated above, the petitioner being the wife
of Ambaji had filed an application seeking for
appointment on compassionate grounds immediately
on the death of Ambaji.
7. This request of the petitioner was considered by the
Municipality and they sought for approval of
appointment in favour of the petitioner. The said
request was forwarded to the Director of Municipal
Administration on 19.08.2019. However, the Director
of Municipal Administration addressed a
communication dated 30.10.2019 calling upon the
Deputy Commissioner to take action in accordance
the letter of the Government dated 15.03.2019.
8. The contents of this letter dated 15.03.2019 are
reproduced as under for the sake of clarity:
"ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ,
- 52 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
«µÀAiÀÄ: gÁdåzÀ £ÀUÀgÀ ¸ÀܽÃAiÀÄ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ¼À°è ¢£ÀUÀÆ°/¸ÀªÀiÁ£À
PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À ªÉÃvÀ£ÀzÀrAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ¤ªÀWÀ»¸ÀÄvÀÛzÀÄÝ,
¸ÉÃªÉ ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƼÀÄîªÀ ªÉÆzÀ®qsÀ ªÀÄÈvÀgÁzÀ
£ËPÀgÀgÀCªÀÄ®A©vÀjUÉC£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀDzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄïÉ
£ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀ §UÉÎ.
G¯ÉèÃR: 1. vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå:¥Ë¤/¹§âA¢/¢é¸ÉøÀ/¹Dgï
01/2016-17 ¢£ÁAPÀ 16.02.2017.
2. DyðPÀ E¯ÁPÉ (ªÉZÀÑ-3&9)AiÀÄn¥Ààt ¢£ÁAPÀ
28.01.2019.
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, G¯ÉèÃTvÀvÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è£À
¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀgÀUÀt¸À®Ä CªÀPÁ±À«®èªÉAzÀÄDyðPÀE¯ÁSÉAiÀÄÄG¯ÉèÃR
2 gÀn¥ÀàtÂAiÀÄ°è ¤ÃrgÀĪÀC©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
wgÀ¸ÀÌj¹zÉ JAzÀÄvÀªÀÄäUÉ w½¸À®Ä ¤zÉÃð²®ànÖzÉÝãÉ."
9. As could be seen from the said letter, the request of
the Municipality to offer an appointment to the
petitioner was rejected based on the communication
dated 15.03.2019 which was in turn based on the
communication of the Finance Department dated
28.01.2019. The petitioner, being aggrieved by this,
is before this Court.
- 53 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
10. At the outset, it is to be stated here that the moment
an order of regularization was passed by the
Government pursuant to the order of the Apex Court
with effect from 11.05.2002, Ambaji would become,
in law, a regular employee of the Government.
11. It cannot be in dispute that if an employee of the
Government were to pass away while in service,
Rules have been framed to consider the case of his
eligible family members for appointment on
compassionate grounds.
12. Thus, if Ambaji 's service was regularized during his
life time i.e., on 11.05.2002 and if he had died
subsequently on 14.06.2006, obviously, the
petitioner being his wife would be entitled to make an
application and request that his case be considered
for appointment on compassionate grounds.
- 54 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
13. In fact, a coordinate bench of this Court, in Sagar's
case16 has held, in identical circumstances, that if
the services of the deceased paura karmika was
regularized after his death, a compassionate
appointment granted to his legal representative was
valid and was justified. It is therefore clear that in an
identical case, the child of a deceased employee
whose services were regularised subsequently after
his death, this Court has upheld the compassionate
appointment. The State has in fact accepted the aid
order and has not preferred any appeal. The
petitioner being similarly placed would also be
entitled to the same benefit.
14. To reiterate, Merely because Ambaji passed away
about ten years prior to the order of regularization
that would not take away the fact that Ambaji was, in
law, a regular employee of the Government when he
passed away on14.06.2006. Since the authorities
Sagar v. State of Karnataka and others (WP No. 200122/2021)
- 55 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2600
AND 5 OTHERS
have proceeded to reject the claim on the ground
that Ambaji had passed away before the order of
regularization and hence, his wife cannot be
considered for appointment on compassionate
ground, obviously, the reasoning would be untenable.
15. Consequently, the case of the petitioner would have
to be considered for appointment on compassionate
grounds in terms of the Karnataka Civil Services
(Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules,
2021. The concerned authorities shall undertake the
said exercise and complete the same within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
16. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part.
Sd/-
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
GSR/VR/PKS
