Karnataka High Court
Sri Hanamanth Kashinath Alias Kashappa ... vs The Divisional Controller on 3 November, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14899
WP No. 108098 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 108098 OF 2025 (S-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. HANAMANTH
KASHINATH @ KASHAPPA @ KAMBLE
AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
R/O. B.R.AMBEDKAR NAGAR,
RAYABHAG, TQ. RAYABHAG,
DIST. BELAGAVI - 591 317.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
NWKRTC, CHIKKODI DIVISION,
CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI - 591 201.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRASHANT HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
VISHAL
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench, OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING
Dharwad
THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 24/07/2025, IN NO.
VAA.KA.RA.SAA/ CHI.VI/SIBBANDI/NEMAKA/925/2025-26,
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT, VIDE ANNEXURE-E, AND
CONSEQUENT UPON QUASHING THE AFORESAID
ENDORSEMENT, ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT TO APPOINT THE PETITIONER ON APPOINTMENT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14899
WP No. 108098 of 2025
HC-KAR
ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND, BY FIXING OUTER LIMIT AND
ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking following
prayer:
i. "Issue writ of Certiorari or any other writ or order
quashing the endorsement dated 24/07/2025, in
no. VAA.KA.RA.SAA/ CHI.VI/ SIBBANDI/ NEMAKA/
925/2025-26, issued by the respondent, vide
Annexure-E, and
ii. Consequent upon quashing the aforesaid
endorsement, issue writ of mandamus directing the
respondent to appoint the petitioner on
appointment on compassionate ground, by fixing
outer limit, and
iii. Issue any other writ or order as this Hon'ble court
may deem fit in the circumstances of the case
including the cost in the ends of justice".
2. Learned counsel Sri.Prashanth Hosmani, is directed
to accept notice for the respondent and is heard in the matter.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14899
HC-KAR
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner takes this Court
through the documents appended to the petition and seeks to
prima facie demonstrate that the petitioner, who is the brother of
the deceased employee of the Corporation, is entitled to be
considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. The
deceased employee died in harness in the year 1999, and the
claim is now made in the year 2025, i.e., after a lapse of 26
years from the date of death.
4. Such a submission does not merit acceptance.
Compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate
relief to the family of a deceased employee to tide over the
sudden crisis arising out of the death of the breadwinner. The
benefit cannot be claimed after a prolonged lapse of time, except
in exceptional circumstances where the delay is attributable to
the employer.
5. In the case at hand, any direction to consider the
petitioner's claim at this stage would run contrary to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Jammu and
Kashmir Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir1.
(2006) 5 SCC 766
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14899
HC-KAR
"8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
The learned counsel for the State submitted that the Division
Bench has committed clear error of law in allowing the
letters patent appeal and setting aside the order passed by
the learned Single Judge. He submitted that the father of the
applicant died in 1987 and an application was made for the
first time in 1991. Even on that day, the applicant was minor
and was not eligible to be appointed. Moreover, the
authorities considered the case of the applicant and in March
1996, the claim of the applicant was rejected. The said fact
was communicated not only to the Department but
also to the applicant and the applicant was aware of
such decision. He, however, kept silence and did
nothing, nor did he challenge the said decision at any
time. After about three years, in 1999, when again
there was a departmental communication, the
applicant woke up and approached the Court and
challenged the said decision. Thus, there was gross
delay and laches on the part of the applicant in
approaching the Court and invoking the writ
jurisdiction of the High Court. The learned Single
Judge was, therefore, wholly justified in dismissing
the petition. It was also argued by the learned counsel that
the sole object of offering compassionate appointment is to
ensure that the family of the employee who dies in harness
does not suffer. When the father of the applicant died in
1987 and the applicant approached the Court in 1999, more
than a decade had passed. Moreover, when the Division
Bench heard the letters patent appeal, more than
fifteen years were over and the said fact ought to
have been taken into account by the Division Bench
and it ought not to have reversed the decision of the
learned Single Judge. He, therefore, submitted that
the appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside the
order passed by the Division Bench restoring the order
of the learned Single Judge.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the
other hand, supported the order passed by the Division
Bench. He stated that discretion has been exercised by the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14899
HC-KAR
Division Bench keeping in view the principles of justice,
equity and good conscience. The Bench was fully justified in
observing that when "compassion" was sought, the approach
of the Court would be liberal and pragmatic rather than rigid
and pedantic. The approach adopted by the Division Bench
in showing sympathy cannot be faulted with and the appeal
deserves to be dismissed.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,
in our opinion, the appeal should be allowed. Certain facts
are not in dispute. The father of the applicant who was in
service, died in harness in March 1987 and for the first time,
the application was made by the applicant after more than
four years i.e. in September 1991. The family thus
survived for more than four years after the death of
the applicant's father. Even at that time, the applicant,
under the relevant guidelines, could not have been
appointed and hence relaxation was prayed. It is no
doubt true that the case of the applicant was
favourably considered by the departments and
recommendation was made, but it is also a fact which
has come on record that in March 1996, a decision
was taken by the authorities not to give appointment
to the applicant on compassionate ground. From the
affidavit-in-reply filed by the authorities in the High
Court as also from the finding of the learned Single
Judge, it is clear that the applicant had knowledge
about rejection of his application in 1996 itself.
Nothing was done by the applicant against the said
decision. Considerable period elapsed and only in
1999, when there was some inter-departmental
communication and the Administrative Officer
informed the Chief Engineer vide a letter dated 8-6-
1999 that the applicant could not be appointed on
compassionate ground that the applicant woke up and
filed a writ petition in the High Court. It is also
pertinent to note that the letter of 1999 itself recites
that the case of the applicant for compassionate
appointment was considered and the prayer had
already been turned down by the Administrative
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14899
HC-KAR
Department and the said fact had been communicated
to the office of the Chief Engineer. A copy of the said
letter was also annexed to the letter of 1999. In our
opinion, therefore, the learned Single Judge was right
in dismissing the petition on the ground of delay and
laches by holding that the applicant had not done
anything for a considerable period after March 1996
when his claim was rejected even though he was
informed about the decision and was very much aware
of it. The Division Bench, in our view, was not justified
in setting aside the said order and in directing the
authorities to consider the case of the applicant for
compassionate appointment and by giving directions
to give other benefits.
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 the 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
from except where compelling circumstances demand,
such as, death of the sole breadwinner and likelihood
of the family suffering because of the setback. Once it
is proved that in spite of the death of the
breadwinner, the family survived and substantial
period is over, there is no necessity to say "goodbye"
to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour
to one at the cost of the interests of several others
ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.
12. In State of Haryana v. Rani Devi [(1996) 5 SCC
308 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1162 : AIR 1996 SC 2445] it was held
that the claim of the applicant for appointment on
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14899
HC-KAR
compassionate ground is based on the premise that he was
dependent on the deceased employee. Strictly this claim
cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the
Constitution. However, such claim is considered reasonable
as also allowable on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in
the family of the employee who had served the State and
died while in service. That is why it is necessary for the
authorities to frame rules, regulations or to issue such
administrative instructions which can stand the test of
Articles 14 and 16. Appointment on compassionate ground
cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
13. In LIC of India v. Asha Ramchhandra
Ambekar [(1994) 2 SCC 718 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 737 : (1994)
27 ATC 174] it was indicated that the High Courts and the
Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled
by sympathetic considerations to make appointments on
compassionate grounds when the regulations framed in
respect thereof do not cover and contemplate such
appointments.
14. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of
Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930 : (1994)
27 ATC 537] 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 the 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 the
rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into
consideration the financial condition of the family of the
deceased. This favourable 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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14899
HC-KAR
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 Sushma Gosain v. Union of India [(1989) 4
SCC 468 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 662 : (1989) 11 ATC 878] it was
observed that in the 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 the death of the breadwinner in the family.
Such appointments should, therefore, be provided
immediately to redeem the family in distress.
16. Recently, in Commr. of Public Instructions v. K.R.
Vishwanath [(2005) 7 SCC 206 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 927] , 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-a-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 the
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 the death of
the employee. Moreover, 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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14899
HC-KAR
Bench, in our view, hence ought not to have allowed
the appeal."
(Emphasis supplied)
6. Accordingly, finding no merit in the petition, the
same stands rejected.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
AC/CT-ASC
