Karnataka High Court
Santosh Kumar vs The Cgo (A) And Ors on 22 September, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5703-DB
WP No. 200124 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT PETITION NO.200124 OF 2025 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SANTOSH KUMAR,
S/O. LATE PANDITH VISHWAKARMA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
OCC: PEON, R/O: CHIDRI VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST. BIDAR - 585 401.
...PETTIONER
(BY SRI SHRAVANKUMAR MATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by
1. THE CGO (A),
BASALINGAPPA OIC CIVIL ADMIN,
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON AIRFORCE STATION,
Location: HIGH BIDAR - 585 401.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE DY. DIRECTOR PC-5,
AIR HEAD QUARTERS,
NEW DELHI - 110 011.
3. UNION OF INDIA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,
NORTH BLOCK,
NEW DELHI - 110 011.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUDHIR SINGH R.VIJAPUR, DSGI)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5703-DB
WP No. 200124 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ALLOW
THIS WRIT PETITION BY ISSUING WRIT OR ORDER OR
DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING
THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION
NO.170/00051/2023 DATED 04.07.2024 WHICH IS AT
ANNEXURE-C, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner counsel
and also the counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. This writ petition is filed against the order dated
04.07.2024 in OA No.170/00051/2023 passed by Central
Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bengaluru (for
short 'CAT'), rejection of the claim made by the petitioner
for the compassionate appointment. While rejecting the
application, the CAT comes to the conclusion that
compassionate appointment is not a vested right which
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5703-DB
HC-KAR
can be exercised at any time in future. Compassionate
employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of
time and after the crisis is over. The same is extracted in
paragraph No.7.2.
3. In view the principles laid down in the judgment
of State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari and others,
the CAT while considering the case of the petitioner in
paragraph No.7.3 taken note of provision for grant of
compassionate employment is to enable the family of the
deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis due to
the death of the bread earner which has left the family in
penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure
humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact
that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the
family would not be in a position to make both the ends
meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment
to one of the dependants of the deceased, who may be
eligible for such appointment. Having regard to such an
object, it would be of no avail to grant compassionate
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5703-DB
HC-KAR
appointment to the dependants of the deceased employee,
after the crisis which arose on account of the death of a
bread-winner, has been overcome.
4. It is observed that - thus, there is also a
compelling need to act with a sense of immediacy in
matters concerning compassionate appointment because
on failure to do so, the object of the scheme of
compassionate would be frustrated. Where a long lapse of
time has occurred since the date of death of the deceased
employee, the sense of immediacy for seeking
compassionate appointment would cease to exist and thus
lose its significance and this would be a relevant
circumstance which must weigh with the authorities in
determining as to whether a case for the grant of
compassionate appointment has been made out for
consideration.
5. The scope is also discussed in paragraph
No.7.3. However, in paragraph No.7.4 comes to the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5703-DB
HC-KAR
conclusion that the sine qua non for non-entertaining the
claim for compassionate appointment is that the family of
the deceased employee would be unable to make two ends
meet without one of the defendants of the deceased
employee being employed on compassionate grounds. The
financial condition of the family of the deceased, at the
time of the death of the deceased, is the primary
consideration that ought to guide the' authorities decision
in the matter.
6. Taking note of the same dismissed the
application in coming to the conclusion that rejection of
the claim made by the applicant cannot be faulted with.
The said order is challenged before this Court by filing this
petition.
7. The main contention urged in this writ petition
is the conclusion of the CAT that the deceased Anand
Kumar who died in harness has nominated the mother of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5703-DB
HC-KAR
the petitioner and not nominated the applicant and the
impugned order is erroneous.
8. It is also contended that CAT has not
considered that the deceased Anand Kumar was not
married and living in a joint family of petitioner and his
brother used to look after the mother of petitioner and
used to look after necessary works of the joint family and
was dependent on the income of the deceased Anand
Kumar. Hence the very rejection is not correct and
petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment.
9. The CAT has committed an error in not
considering the primary object of such a scheme is to save
the bereaved family from sudden financial crisis occurring
due to the death of sole bread earner. The other reason
was given considering the letter dated 16.11.2022 that the
brother of the Anand Kumar is aged more than 25 years.
Hence, the same cannot be considered is also not tenable
reason.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5703-DB
HC-KAR
10. The counsel also would vehemently contend
that when the family is under the financial crisis ought not
to have rejected the same and the CAT ought to have
considered the very object and providing the
compassionate appointment.
11. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the
respondents filed a statement of objections before the CAT
vide Annexure-R8 to the writ petition and brought to
notice of this Court at paragraph No.6 that only
Smt.Vidyawati was nominated as next of kin by Sri Anand
Kumar, when he was alive and Smt.Vidyawati had
submitted an application to delete her name from the
service records of late Anand Kumar and add the names of
her other sons. She was replied that the deletion/addition
of name in the service records of the deceased is not
feasible after the death of the employee.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5703-DB
HC-KAR
12. it is contended that a specific ground is urged in
the reply statement while filing the statement of objection
and hence the CAT rightly rejected the same.
13. Having heard the petitioner's counsel and also
the counsel appearing for the respondents and also
considering the grounds which have been urged in the
petition, the point that would arise for consideration of this
court are:
"Whether the CAT committed an error in
rejecting the application filed by the petitioner
and whether it requires interference of this
Court ?"
14. Having considered the grounds which have
been urged in the writ petition as well as the statement of
objections filed before the CAT at Annexure-R8 and in
paragraph No.2 of their own objection statement, scheme
also extracted, wherein it is very clear that scheme of
employment assistance with under indigent circumstances
is applicable to a dependent family member of the
Government servant who dies while in service, or retired
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5703-DB
HC-KAR
on medical grounds. As per policy in vogue the eligible
member means of the following including the spouse, son,
daughter, brother or sister in case of unmarried
Government servant, who was wholly dependent on
Government servant at the time of his death in harness or
retirement on medical grounds, as the case may be.
15. Having considered the scheme, it is very clear
that the scheme includes the brother, who is an unmarried
brother of the Government servant, and when such being
the case, the brother also comes within the scheme of the
respondent, who is also an unmarried. Admittedly there is
no denial that deceased is unmarried and also no doubt
only the name of the mother was mentioned as the
nominee in the service records, the same cannot be a
ground to reject the claim of the brother, who is an
unmarried. The other reason assigned is that person
should not be aged more than 25 years. The counsel
appearing for the respondents not placed any record with
regard to the bar that he should not be more than age of
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5703-DB
HC-KAR
25 years and the said bar is only in respect of pension is
concerned and not in respect of the employment. No other
family member earning in the family and family is under
financial distress. When such being the case, CAT ought to
have taken note of the said rule as well as the family is
under distress on account of death of the person, who is
under Government service and the fact that when the
claim is made by the brother, who is an unmarried
brother, ought to have been considered and the very
object of the very scheme has not been properly read by
the CAT while considering the claim made by the claimant.
The delay is not attributable to the person who is claiming
the compassionate employment and the endorsement
issued is unreasonable one and the same is not in
accordance with law.
16. When such being the case, the CAT ought to
have taken note of the delay is on account of an
unreasonable endorsement issued by the respondents and
the same has not been considered by the CAT properly.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5703-DB
HC-KAR
Hence, it requires interference of this Court as the CAT
committed an error in dismissing the claim made by the
applicant. Therefore, we answered the point as
affirmative.
17. In view of the discussions made above, we pass
the following :
ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 04.07.2024 in
OA No.170/00051/2024 passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore
Bench, Bengaluru is hereby quashed.
Consequently, the application is allowed.
iii) The endorsement dated 15.09.2022 issued
by respondent No.1 and the communication
dated 16.11.2022 issued by respondent
No.2 are hereby quashed.
iv) A direction is issued in the nature of
mandamus, directing the respondents to
the application and to give compassionate
appointment to the petitioner, within a
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5703-DB
HC-KAR
period of one month from the date of
receipt of the copy of this order.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
SN
CT:NI
