- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3534 WP No. 11688 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 11688 OF 2022 (S-RES) BETWEEN: RANJITHA. C. R. W/O. PRABHU D.G., AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKADEVANURU, DEVANURU POST-577 175, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVASA K., ADV.) AND: 1. CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, NO.29, VIJAYANAGARA, 2ND STAGE, HINKAL, MYSURU-570 017. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELE.) CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., O AND M, CHN-KODAGU CIRCLE, SRI. HARSHA ROAD, MYSURU-570 001. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE.) OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT DIVISION, Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3534 WP No. 11688 of 2022 CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MADIKERI-571 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.G C. SHANMUKHA, ADV. FOR R1 SRI H.V. DEVARAJU, ADV. FOR R2 & R3) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.2021-22/7460-62 DATED 30.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-K TO THE WRIT PETITION AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND TO A SUITABLE POST. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT ORAL ORDER The petitioner, aggrieved by the rejection of her application for appointment on compassionate ground under endorsement bearing No.PÁ¤EA(«)/¯É.C/¸À¯ÉC/»¸À(¹)/2021- 22/7460-62 dated 30.03.2022 (Annexure-K) by respondent No.3 is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3534 WP No. 11688 of 2022 2. Heard Sri.K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri.G.C.Shanmukha, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri.H.V.Devaraju, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3. Perused the writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that brother of the petitioner was working as Junior Lineman in CHESCOM and he died while in service on 16.12.2019. It is submitted that the petitioner, sister of the deceased Lineman submitted an application/representation dated 29.09.2020 seeking employment on compassionate ground. The said application was rejected under impugned endorsement dated 30.03.2022 (Annexure-K). Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the endorsement of the respondent rejecting petitioner’s request for compassionate appointment is opposed to the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Recruitment (Compassionate Ground Appointment) Regulations 1997 (for short “1997 Regulations”) and submits that making provision for brothers and sisters of the deceased - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3534 WP No. 11688 of 2022 employees for appointment on compassionate ground was inserted by amendment dated 08.11.2021. Learned counsel would submit that according to the amendment, petitioner would be entitled for consideration of her case for compassionate appointment. Learned counsel in that regard places reliance on the decision of this court dated 23.08.204 in W.P.No.15961/2022 (Smt.A.R.Bhanumathi V/S State of Karnataka and others) as well as the order dated 03.12.2024 in W.A.No.1400/2023 (Bangalore Electricity Supply Company and another V/S Sri.Sagar A.R.). Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel Sri.H.V.Devaraju appearing for respondents would submit that the case of the petitioner shall have to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground on the Rules which was existing as on the date of death of the employee of CHESCOM. Learned counsel would submit that brother of the petitioner died while in service on 16.12.2019 and as on - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3534 WP No. 11688 of 2022 the said date, there was no provision for appointment of either brother or sister of the deceased employee on compassionate ground. Thus, learned counsel justifies the endorsement issued by the respondents. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point which falls for consideration is as to whether endorsement under challenge dated 30.03.2022 (Annexure-K) is legally sustainable? 6. Answer to the above point would be in the negative and the endorsement required to be interfered with, at the hands of this Court, for following reasons: It is not in dispute that brother of the petitioner was working as Lineman in the respondent-CHESCOM and he died while in service on 16.12.2019. The petitioner, sister of the deceased lineman of the respondent-CHESCOM submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground on 29.09.2020. The said request was rejected under endorsement dated 30.03.2022 on the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3534 WP No. 11688 of 2022 ground that as on the date of death of petitioner’s brother, there was no such provision for appointment to brother or sister of the deceased employee on compassionate ground. 7. It is an admitted fact that as on the date of death of the brother of the petitioner, there was no provision for appointment of sister or brother of the deceased employee on compassionate ground. In terms of amendment by way of substitution under notification dated 08.11.2021, provision was made for appointment on compassionate ground to brother or sister of the deceased employee of the respondent. As observed above, the said amendment is by way of insertion. The said amendment notification dated 08.11.2021 was the subject matter of the above stated writ petition and writ appeal. 8. The Division Bench in the above stated W.P.No.15961/2022 after taking note of the amended notification and the decision, on which reliance was placed at paragraphs 8 and 9 has held as follows: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3534 WP No. 11688 of 2022 “8. Learned Additional Government Advocate placed reliance on the decision of BHEEMESH (supra) to contend that the application for compassionate appointment shall be considered in terms of the Rules that existed as on the date of death of the Government servant and further submitted that in the instant case there was no provision to consider the request of married daughter for compassionate ground appointment as on the date of death of Government servant. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above decision i.e., BHEEMESH (supra) was considering the amendment to 1996 Rules dated 11.07.2012 by which, an unmarried brother of deceased female unmarried Government servant was included within the definition of dependent of deceased Government servant. The amendment brought under Notification dated 11.07.2012 was by way of insertion of additional words and the amendment was not by way of substitution. Where amendment to a Rule or Act is by way of substitution, the amended provision is to be read as if it was there in the statute book from the day, the said Rule or Act came into force. Since in BHEEMESH (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court was considering amendment to 1996 Rules by way of insertion and in that circumstance, it held that the amendment would not be applicable merely - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3534 WP No. 11688 of 2022 because the application for appointment was taken up for consideration after the issuance of the amendment. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in BHEEMESH (supra) would have no application to the facts of the present case since the petitioner is seeking benefit of 2021 Amended Rules which is by way of substitution. 9. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in SMT.LATHA.H.R., (supra) was considering identical question and at paragraphs 6 and 7, it is held as follows: “6. Having considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the opinion that the finding of the Tribunal that the amendment had only prospective effect and therefore the application cannot be considered, cannot be accepted. The petitioner's application has been rejected only on the ground that she is a married daughter of the deceased government servant. It is not disputed that the provisions of the unamended Rules to the effect only an unmarried daughter could make an application stood struck down as unconstitutional and the said judgment has become final. Thereafter, the Rules have also been amended substituting the words "unmarried daughter" with the word "daughter". 7. In the above view of the matter and in view of the fact of amendment made to the Rules by substitution, we are of the opinion that the rejection of the application for appointment made by the petitioner on the sole ground that she is a married daughter cannot be accepted.” - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:3534 WP No. 11688 of 2022 9. In view of decision of the Division Bench referred supra in W.P.No.15961/2022 disposed of on 23.08.2024, this writ petition also deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order: (a)The writ petition is allowed in part. The endorsement bearing No.PÁ¤EA(«)/¯É.C/¸À¯ÉC/»¸À(¹)/2021-22/7460- 62 dated 30.03.2022 (Annexure-K) is quashed. (b) Respondent No.2 is directed to consider petitioner’s application/representation dated 29.09.2020 for compassionate appointment, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible and pass appropriate orders in the matter of providing compassionate appointment. (c) Time for compliance : 8 weeks from today. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40