[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Gangamma W/O Late Siddappa Chalagiri vs The Maanaging Director on 6 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:70
WP No. 107434 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 107434 OF 2024 (S-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
1. GANGAMMA W/O. LATE SIDDAPPA CHALAGIRI
AGE: 70 YEARS,
R/O. ALAMPUR PETE,
TQ: ILAKAL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587125.
2. GURUDEVI D/O. SIDDAPPA CHALAGERI
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. ALAMPUR PETE, TQ: ILAKAL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587125.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. C R HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MAANAGING DIRECTOR
GIRIJA A. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
BYAHATTI TRANSPORT HOUSE,
CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD,
Digitally signed by GIRIJA
A. BYAHATTI SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027.
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2026.01.08 11:12:49
+0530 2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
W.K.R.T.C. HAVERI DIVISIONAL,
HAVERI-581110.
3. THE DIVISIONAL SECURITY SUPERINTENDENT
W.K.R.T.C., HAVERI DIVISION,
HAVERI-581110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRASHANT HOSMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. ROHIT S.PATIL AND
SRI. KAMALAKAR M.S., ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:70
WP No. 107434 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT NO.VAKARASA/HAVI/
SIBBANDI/SI6/837/2023-24, DATED 13.07.2024, ISSUED BY THE
SECOND RESPONDENT, AS PER ANNEXURE-A; WRIT OF
MANDAMUS DIRECTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO
CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 15.09.2023 AND
10.06.2024, AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND H; WRIT OF MANDAMUS
DIRECTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE
PETITIONER NO.2 FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE
GROUND BY RELAXING THE UPPER AGE AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner has approached this Court calling in
question the endorsement dated 13.07.2024 issued by
the second respondent (Annexure-A), whereby the
application/representation submitted by petitioner
No.2 seeking appointment on compassionate ground
was rejected on the ground that she had crossed the
upper age limit of 38 years and, therefore, was held to
be ineligible for appointment on compassionate
grounds.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:70
HC-KAR
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing
for the respondent - Corporation.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that;
3.1. Petitioner No.2 is the sister of the deceased
employee, who died in harness and was
employed with the second respondent -
Corporation.
3.2. Petitioner No.1, being the mother of the
deceased employee, submitted a representation
dated 15.09.2023 seeking appointment of her
daughter (petitioner No.2) on compassionate
ground and, by the said representation, gave her
consent. The said request was made strictly in
accordance with the circular dated 31.01.2022
issued by the respondent - Corporation.
3.3. Further, that the respondent - Corporation has
issued the endorsement, without considering the
settled proposition of law that a claim for
NC: 2026:KHC-D:70
HC-KAR
compassionate appointment cannot be rejected
merely on the ground of age, particularly when
the dependency and indigent circumstances are
not in dispute.
3.4. That the deceased employee was admittedly
unmarried and the entire family was dependent
upon his income.
3.5. Further, petitioner No.2 being otherwise eligible
in all respects for appointment on compassionate
grounds, is entitled for appointment and that the
rejection of her claim by the respondent -
Corporation is arbitrary and contrary to law.
3.6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for
the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of
the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Saroja v. Managing Director and Others1
(Saroja).
Writ Petition No.106296 of 2025, dated 14.10.2025
NC: 2026:KHC-D:70
HC-KAR
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent - Corporation submits that the applicable
rules governing compassionate appointment prescribe
an upper age limit of 38 years and petitioner No.2
being aged about 42 years and 9 months as on the
date of consideration, was therefore not eligible for
appointment. It is contended that the respondent
authority has rightly rejected the claim in accordance
with the rules governing compassionate appointment.
In support of his contention, learned counsel places
reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court in Pallavi G. M. v. The Managing Director
and Others2 (Pallavi).
5. This Court has carefully considered the contentions
urged by learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the material placed on record.
6. The object and purpose of appointment on
compassionate grounds is intended to mitigate the
Writ Appeal No.626 of 2023, dated 07.09.2023
NC: 2026:KHC-D:70
HC-KAR
immediate financial hardship faced by the family of a
deceased employee who dies in harness and to ensure
that the dependents are not left without support.
Compassionate appointment is therefore a measure
rooted in social welfare and social justice and must be
considered keeping in mind the circumstances of the
bereaved family and with reference to the factual
circumstances of each case.
7. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the
deceased employee died in harness in the year 2023.
It is also not in dispute that the deceased was
unmarried. Petitioner No.1, the mother of the
deceased employee, submitted a representation
seeking compassionate appointment in favour of
petitioner No.2, her daughter. The respondent
authority, however, rejected the said request solely on
the ground of age, without any examination of
dependency, financial distress or indigent
circumstances of the family. Such a mechanical
NC: 2026:KHC-D:70
HC-KAR
rejection defeats the very purpose of compassionate
appointment.
8. Merely because the dependent has crossed the
prescribed age limit at the time of consideration
cannot, by itself, be a valid ground to deny
compassionate appointment, particularly when the
employee died in harness and petitioner No.2 would
have been otherwise entitled for compassionate
appointment. The timing of the death of an employee,
which is beyond the control of the dependents, cannot
operate to their detriment. The appointment on
compassionate ground is not determined by strict
eligibility alone, but by human necessities arising from
sudden deprivation. The primary consideration in
matters relating to compassionate appointment is
whether the applicant was dependent on the deceased
employee and whether the family is in financial
distress due to the death of the employee. Strict
application of age norms, without considering the
NC: 2026:KHC-D:70
HC-KAR
purpose and object of compassionate appointment,
defeats the very intent behind the scheme. The
impugned endorsement does not reflect any
consideration of the dependency of petitioners or the
financial condition of the family. The interest of social
justice, which the respondent authority is expected to
advance, is not seen in the impugned endorsement.
9. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for
the respondent - Corporation in Pallavi case is clearly
distinguishable on facts. In that case, the applicant-
sister of the deceased employee had failed to establish
dependency on the deceased employee. While in the
present case, the issue of dependency has not been
examined at all by the respondent authority, and the
claim has been rejected solely on the ground of age
limit. Therefore, the decision relied upon by the
respondent - Corporation in the Pallavi case is clearly
distinguishable and does not apply to the facts of the
present case.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:70
HC-KAR
10. On the other hand, the decision relied upon by the
learned counsel for the petitioner in Saroja case
squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The
Coordinate Bench of this Court at para 11 of the
judgment has held as under:
11. The Co-ordinate Bench holds that merely
because the age of the applicant, seeking for
appointment on compassionate grounds, is
beyond 43 years, the appointment cannot be
denied, and has directed the appointment to be
considered without reference to the upper age
limit, and has further directed that cases of this
kind need, to be regulated by formulating a
humane policy. I am in respectful agreement
with what the Co-ordinate Bench has held, but
I deem it appropriate to amplify the order. It
becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of Canara Bank vs.
Ajithkumar G.K.3, which considers the entire
spectrum of the law regarding compassionate
appointment right from Umeshkumar Nagpal
vs. State of Haryana4 upto State of West
2025 SCC OnLine SC 290
(1994) 4 SCC 138
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:70
HC-KAR
Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari5. The Apex
Court formulates certain issues and sub-issues.
One of the sub-issue formulated is whether on
a cut-off age under the scheme, without
looking into the circumstances as to when one
would need compassionate appointment, the
application cannot be rejected. The Apex Court
has held as follows:
"34. Whether relaxation in age ought
to have been granted is the next sub-issue. A
contention raised on behalf of the
respondent, and which succeeded, was to the
effect that since he was overaged only by
eight months on the date of death of his
father, he should have been granted
relaxation of age for which power was
conferred by the scheme of 1993. We are
conscious that there is substance in the
contention on behalf of the respondent that
this issue is no longer open to be decided
here. The decision initially taken that the
respondent was over-aged had been set
aside in the first round of litigation and,
therefore, the principle of res judicata is
indeed attracted.
35. However, the point having been
argued at some length, our views on
(2025) 5 SCC 712
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:70
HC-KAR
interpretation of the scheme of 1993 could
be of some worth for courts deciding similar
such issue in future. We are in agreement
with learned counsel for the appellant
that the question of relaxation would
arise only when the claimant satisfies
the other requirements of the scheme of
1993 for compassionate appointment.
What seems to be logical is that no
dependant, who otherwise satisfies all
criteria for compassionate appointment
including suitability, should be told off
at the gate solely on the ground of age-
bar. If the age of the claimant is found
to be within the relaxable limit,
discretion is available to be exercised in
an appropriate case. Relaxation of age is
a step to be taken in the final stages of
the entire process and it would arise for
consideration provided all other
conditions for appointment are satisfied.
If in a given case, such as this, that the
family of the deceased is not found to be
indigent, the first threshold is not crossed
and thereby, the process does not progress
any further. In such a case, it would be in
idle formality to consider whether relaxation
of age should be granted.
XXXXXXXX
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:70
HC-KAR
42. While reasoning that the stand
of the appellant was unjustified, the
coordinate bench had the occasion to
consider several decisions of this Court and
ultimately held as follows:
"19. Insofar as the contention of
the appellant Bank that since the
respondent's family is getting family
pension and also obtained the terminal
benefits, in our view, is of no
consequence in considering the
application for compassionate
appointment. Clause 3.2 of the 1993
Scheme says that in case the
dependant of the deceased employee
to be offered appointment is a minor,
the Bank may keep the offer of
appointment open till the minor attains
the age of majority. This would
indicate that granting of terminal
benefits is of no consequence because
even if terminal benefit is given, if the
applicant is a minor, the Bank would
keep the appointment open till the
minor attains majority.
22. Considering the scope of the
scheme 'Dying in Harness Scheme
1993' then in force and the facts and
circumstances of the case, the High
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:70
HC-KAR
Court rightly directed the appellant
Bank to reconsider the claim of the
respondent for compassionate
appointment in accordance with law
and as per the Scheme (1993) then in
existence. We do not find any reason
warranting interference."
43. In our considered view, the
objectives of the scheme of 1993 and the
requirements of disclosure relating to
financial condition and the details of liabilities
of the deceased employee in the prescribed
formats (Annexures I and II, respectively)
would leave none in doubt about the
intention of the policy makers. Overcoming
the immediate financial difficulties on account
of sudden stoppage of the main source of
income and existence of indigent
circumstances necessitating employment to
one of the dependants being at the heart of
the scheme of 1993, it is difficult, if not
impossible, to accept it as a valid proposition
of law that grant of terminal benefits cannot
be of any consequence since paragraph 3.2
of the scheme of 1993 permits the offer of
appointment to be kept open till such time
the surviving minor dependant, who is to be
offered appointment, attains majority. To our
mind, what paragraph 3.2 postulates is that,
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:70
HC-KAR
despite there being indigent circumstances
necessitating appointment, the object of
compassionate appointment thereunder
should not be frustrated for mere absence of
an eligible dependant family member. The
offer would be kept open for such minor to
attain majority, whereafter he would be
offered appointment subject to suitability,
and once he accepts the appointment, he
would be under an obligation to look after
the other indigent family members.
Although paragraph 3.2 may not be
wholly in sync with the objective of
overcoming immediate financial
difficulties, it has to be seen as a
benevolent clause extending the benefit
of compassionate appointment even
beyond reasonable limits, obviously to
cover exceptional cases, for ensuring
the right of the family members of the
deceased employee to live with human
dignity. The idea for incorporation of
this clause in the scheme of 1993 cannot
be confused with grant/release of
terminal benefits. Both operate in
different arena and, therefore, we
respectfully disagree with the reasoning
in paragraph 19 of Canara Bank (supra).
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:70
HC-KAR
44. As pertinently held in B.
Kishore (supra), indigence of the
dependants of the deceased employee is
the fundamental condition to be
satisfied under any scheme for
appointment on compassionate ground
and that if such indigence is not proved,
grant of relief in furtherance of
protective discrimination would result in
a sort of reservation for the dependents
of the employee dying-in-harness,
thereby directly conflicting with the
ideal of equality guaranteed under
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Also, judicial decisions abound that in
deciding a claim for appointment on
compassionate grounds, the financial
situation of the deceased employee's
family must be assessed. In a situation
otherwise, the purpose of the scheme
may be undermined; without this
evaluation, any dependent of an
employee who dies while in service
might claim a right to employment as if
it is heritable.
45. The ratio decidendi of all
these decisions have to be read in
harmony to achieve the noble goal of
giving succour to the dependants of the
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:70
HC-KAR
employee dying-in-harness, who are
genuinely in need, and not with the aim
of giving them a post for another post.
One has to remember in this connection
the caution sounded in Umesh Kumar
Nagpal (supra) that as against the
destitute family of the deceased there
are millions of other families which are
equally, if not more, destitute."
(emphasis supplied)
11. The Coordinate Bench, relying upon the judgments of
the Hon'ble Apex Court, has held that the need for
compassionate appointment and the financial hardship
faced by the family must be the guiding consideration
while accepting or rejecting an application for
compassionate appointment. The said principle applies
with full force to the present case. The consistent
principles emerging therefrom is that, no dependent,
who otherwise satisfies the conditions of
compassionate appointment, should be turned away
solely on the ground of age, without examining
indigence and dependency.
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:70
HC-KAR
12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the
considered view that the impugned endorsement
dated 13.07.2024 does not reflect any application of
mind to these considerations and therefore cannot be
sustained. The matter requires reconsideration by the
respondent authority in accordance with law and in the
light of the observations made hereinabove.
Accordingly, this Court pass the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed in part.
ii. The impugned endorsement dated 13.07.2024
issued by the second respondent (Annexure-A)
is hereby quashed.
iii. The second respondent is directed to
reconsider the claim of the petitioners afresh,
taking into consideration the representations
submitted by the petitioners at Annexures-D
and H dated 15.09.2023 and 10.06.2024,
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:70
HC-KAR
respectively, seeking appointment on
compassionate grounds.
iv. While reconsidering the matter, the respondent
authority shall consider the case of petitioner
No.2 for compassionate appointment without
reference to the upper age limit, and shall pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law,
subject to fulfillment of other eligibility
conditions and assessment of dependency and
indigent circumstances, in accordance with
law.
v. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed
within a reasonable period, preferably within
eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
gab
Ct:VH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37
