[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt. Laxmi D/O Late Nagappa Kittur W/O ... vs The Assistant Registrar on 13 March, 2026
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad, Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4011-DB
WA No. 100548 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.100548 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. LAXMI D/O. LATE NAGAPPA KITTUR
W/O. SHIVANAND MARIKATTI,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. VIVEKANAND NAGAR,
COURT CIRCLES HUKKERI,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI,
NOW RESIDING AT PLOT NO. 16,
RENUKA NAGAR, KANABARGI ROAD,
BELAGAVI-590016.
...APPELLANT
VISHAL (BY SRI. H.M.DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE)
NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL AND:
Digitally signed by
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL 1. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BELAGAVI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-590001.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4011-DB
WA No. 100548 of 2024
HC-KAR
4. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
DISTRICT COURT BELAGAVI,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-590001.
5. THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
HUKKERI COURT HUKKERI,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591309.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO, ALLOW
THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED.
21-02-2024 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO.
103661/2021 AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE
APPELLANT HEREIN IN ENTIRETY, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4011-DB
WA No. 100548 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
This writ appeal is directed against the order dated
21.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.103661 of 2021.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant -petitioner
and learned counsel for respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend
that the appellant's father was a at tender serving under
respondent No.4 and he died in harness on 21.06.2005. The
appellant -petitioner as daughter submitted representation
requesting for grant of employment on compassionate
grounds. The appellant -petitioner's application came to be
rejected on the ground that there is no provision to consider
married daughter for providing appointment on
compassionate grounds. He contended that even the married
daughter has now been considered as dependant and the
amended Rules provides for appointment of married daughter
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4011-DB
HC-KAR
on compassionate ground. With this, he prays to allow the
writ appeal.
4. Learned counsel for respondents would contend
that the application filed by the appellant -petitioner earlier
came to be rejected on the ground that she is married
daughter residing with her husband in her husband's family
and Rules does not provide for appointment of a married
daughter on compassionate grounds. The said application
was considered and it came to be rejected and a
communication dated 21.11.2007 has been made by
respondent No.1 to respondent No.4. In turn respondent No.4
had made a communication to respondent No.5 to intimate
the rejection of the application filed by the appellant -
petitioner. Respondent No.5 has issued notice dated
15.12.2007 (annexure-3) to the appellant -petitioner. The
said notice has been served personally on the appellant -
petitioner on 26.12.2007 and the report is at annexure -R4.
The appellant -petitioner suppressing the said rejection of her
application has filed W.P.No6430/2008 (annexure-R6). But in
the said writ petition, the appellant -petitioner has not
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4011-DB
HC-KAR
disclosed rejection of her application for compassionate
grounds and only contending that her application is pending
consideration and as she got issued legal notice on
08.12.2007, a prayer has been made to consider the case of
the appellant -petitioner for appointment on compassionate
grounds. The appellant -petitioner has not challenged earlier
rejection of her application, which has been communicated to
her on 26.12.2007 i.e., prior to filing of the writ petition on
12.02.2008. The Writ Court has considered the case of the
appellant -petitioner on merits and held that the appellant -
petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate
ground as she being a married daughter and she has not
made out grounds for appointment on compassionate
ground. With this, he prayed to dismiss the writ appeal.
5. Having heard learned counsels, we have perused
the impugned order passed by the writ Court and other
materials placed on record.
6. The father of the appellant -petitioner who was
working as an attender under respondent No.4 died in
harness on 21.06.2005. The appellant -petitioner made a
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4011-DB
HC-KAR
representation requesting to grant employment on
compassionate ground. The service record indicated that the
appellant -petitioner is a married daughter. Considering the
said aspect, respondent No.1 made communication dated
21.11.2007 to respondent No.3 communicating rejection of
the application of the appellate -petitioner since, the
applicant -petitioner is a married daughter as declared by the
deceased official in his service register and it is contrary to
Rule 3 of Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on
Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996. Respondent No.4
communicated the said rejection of the application of the
appellant -petitioner to respondent No.5 by communication
dated 04.12.2007 and returning all the documents submitted
by the appellant -petitioner. Respondent No.5 sent a notice to
the appellant -petitioner dated 15.12.2007 intimating
rejection of her application seeking appointment on
compassionate ground and directing to collect the original
marks cards. The said notice is at annexure-R3. The said
notice has been served as per endorsement and report of the
process server on the appellant -petitioner on 26.12.2007
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4011-DB
HC-KAR
vide annexure -R4. The appellant -petitioner has collected her
documents and made endorsement on annexure -R2 in
January -2008. The appellant -petitioner suppressing the
earlier rejection has filed writ petition on 15.04.2008 vide
annexure -R5. In the said petition (annexure -R5), the
appellant -petitioner has not stated regarding rejection of her
application for appointment on compassionate ground and
it's communication on her on 26.12.2007. The appellate -
petitioner, only submitting that her application for
appointment on compassionate grounds is pending and it
has not been considered and no communication was made to
her and therefore, she got issued a legal notice on 08.12.2007
for considering her case for appointment on compassionate
ground. Considering the said prayer, writ Court in
W.P.No.6430/2008 has disposed of the said petition giving
liberty to the appellant -petitioner to make a fresh
representation to the respondent No.3 - Principal District
and Sessions Judge, Belagavi for appointment on
compassionate ground and the respondent shall consider the
same in accordance with law keeping in mind the earlier
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4011-DB
HC-KAR
letters written by the appellant -petitioner. The appellant -
petitioner again filed representation dated 07.11.2015 to
consider her case for appointment on compassionate ground.
In that she has stated that her prior application has been
rejected. The representation of the petitioner has been
processed and again it was rejected by communication dated
05.05.2016 by respondent No.1 to respondent No.3
(annexure -R). The said annexure -R has been sought to be
quashed in the writ petition before the single judge.
7. Considering the above aspects, it is clear that the
appellant -petitioner has not challenged the earlier rejection
of her application for appointment on compassionate ground,
which was communicated to her on 26.12.2007. Suppressing
the said fact, she filed a writ petition No.6430/2008. Earlier
rejection of the appellant -petitioner's application has
remained unchallenged. All these aspects have been
specifically stated in the statement of objections filed by the
respondents counsel by enclosing with the relevant
documents.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4011-DB
HC-KAR
8. Even in spite of that, the case of the appellant -
petitioner has been again considered on merits by the writ
Court under the impugned order. The writ Court placing
reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court as
observed as under
"5. It is pertinent to draw upon the judgment of
the division bench of this Court in the case of Mrs.
Megha.J. vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India
(LIC) and another [W.A.No.891/2023(S-RES),
DD.27.9.2023], which elucidates the legal interpretation
of dependency and the rationale behind precluding
married daughters from eligibility for compassionate
appointment. Para 4 of the judgment reads as under:
"4. Learned Single Judge has rightly relied
upon the Apex Court decision in State of
Maharashtra vs. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate AIR
2022 SC 5176 to the effect that a married
daughter residing in the matrimonial home
ordinarily cannot be treated as a dependent on
her father. Our scriptures injunct "bharta
rakshati yavvane..." literally meaning that it is
the duty of husband to provide maintenance to
his dependent wife. That is how our
legislations too are structured e.g., Section 125
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(applicable to all regardless of religions),
Sections 24 & 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 (applicable to Hindus, in a broad sense of
the term), Section 37 of the Divorce Act, 1869
(applicable to Christians), Section 40 of the
Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4011-DB
HC-KAR
(applicable to Parsis), Section 20 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005 (applicable to all persons regardless
of religion and marital status), Sections 36 & 37
of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, The Muslim
Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act,
2019 (applicable to Muslims wives), etc., have
been structured. No binding rule or ruling that
guarantees right of maintenance to the married
daughter residing with the husband qua the
father, is brought to our notice."
The judgment emphasizes the duty of a husband
to provide maintenance to his wife and reaffirms the
principle that compassionate appointment is intended to
alleviate the immediate financial distress of the
deceased's family, rather than confer entitlements or
privileges based on marital status."
9. The object of compassionate appointment is firmly
rooted in addressing the immediate financial crisis faced by
families following the demise of a family member, without
conferring appointment as a matter of right or inheritance.
The essence of compassionate appointment lies in addressing
the immediate financial distress experienced by the family in
the aftermath of the employee's demise. The term dependent
within the context of compassionate appointment denotes
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4011-DB
HC-KAR
family members who were reliant on the deceased employee
for financial support.
10. Considering the said aspects, the writ Court has
rightly observed that the primary objective of compassionate
appointment is to address the immediate financial constraint
faced by the family following the death of the government's
servant or employee. However, the prolonged delay in
addressing the appellant -petitioner's request has allowed for
a substantial amount of time to elapse without providing the
necessary assistance or relief to the family. The writ Court
has observed thus
"10. During this extended period, the financial
circumstances and needs of the petitioner's family may
have undergone significant changes. The initial urgency
and immediacy of the financial constraints experienced
by the family may no longer be as pressing or relevant
after such a prolonged period. Therefore, if the
petitioner's family has been self-sufficient and able to
maintain themselves without facing significant financial
constraints since the demise of the deceased employee,
they may not be considered eligible for compassionate
appointment as the primary objective of providing
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4011-DB
HC-KAR
immediate financial relief would not be applicable in the
present case."
11. Considering the above aspects, the writ Court has
rightly held that the appellant -petitioner does not possess
eligibility criteria and she has no legal right to seek
appointment on compassionate ground and rightly dismissed
the writ petition. We are not persuaded to allow the appeal.
In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(B.M.SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
DSP
CT:VH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3
