- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5922 WP No. 26779 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 26779 OF 2023 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. KOUSALYA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, WIDOW OF LATE B. S. BOREGOWDA, RESIDING AT NO. 93, 3RD CROSS, 1ST MAIN, DODDABIDARAKALLU, BYRAVESWARA LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 073. 2. MR. PRATHAP. B AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, S/O. LATE B. S. BOREGOWDA, RESIDING AT NO. 93, 3RD CROSS, 1ST MAIN, DODDABIDARAKALLU, BYRAVESWARA LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 073. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAVI C SANNAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5922 WP No. 26779 of 2023 2. KARNATAKA STATE MARKETING COMMUNICATION AND ADVERTISING LTD., (A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MC&A HOUSE, NO. 42, MILLERS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRATHIBHA R.K., AGA FOR R1; SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.06.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND ETC. 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 1. Petitioners are the wife and son of one late B.S. Boregowda, who was working as an Attender in the 2nd respondent-Karnataka State Marketing Communications and Advertising Limited, are before this Court questioning the correctness or otherwise of Communication dated 18.06.2019 (Annexure M) and also praying for a direction - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5922 WP No. 26779 of 2023 to the 2nd respondent to consider the case of 2nd petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in accordance with the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 for short 'the Rules'). 2. Heard Sri Ravi C. Sannappa, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Prathiba R.K., learned AGA for 1st respondent as well as Sri T.P. Vivekananda, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that husband of 1st petitioner and father of 2nd petitioner one late B.S. Boregowda was working as Attender in the 2nd respondent and he died while in service on 23.12.2015. It is submitted that the application submitted by the 1st petitioner to consider 2nd petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds is rejected under impugned proceedings of the Board dated 18.06.2019 (Annexure M) - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5922 WP No. 26779 of 2023 on the ground that 2nd petitioner has not attained the age of 18 years, within one year from the date of death of his father, i.e., within one year from 23.12.2015. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the said reasoning is opposed to Rule 9(1) as well as (1A) of the Rules. He further submits that Rule (1A) empowers the 2nd respondent to entertain the application if it is made within two years from the date of attaining the age of 18 years. Further learned counsel would submit that even otherwise, there is delay of four months in attaining the age of majority, which requires to be condoned, thus learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition. 5. Per contra, Sri.T.P. Vivekananda, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that 2nd petitioner has not attained the age of 18 years as required under Rule 5 of the Rules and he further submits that Rule 9(1A) of Rules would not come to the aid of the petitioners, since the 2nd petitioner has not attained majority within one year from - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5922 WP No. 26779 of 2023 the date of death of his father. Thus he prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the writ petitions papers, I am of the view, that petitioners are not entitled for the relief as prayed for in the writ petition. 7. It is an admitted fact that the husband of the 1st petitioner and father of 2nd petitioner was working as Attender in the 2nd respondent and died while in service on 23.12.2015. The date of birth of 2nd petitioner being 28.04.1999, he attained majority only on 27.04.2017. In terms of proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules, (which was existing as on the date of consideration of the 2nd petitioner in the year 2019) dependant of the deceased servant must have attained the age of 18 years within one year from the date of death of the employee. The amendment which has come into force in the year 2021 will have no application to the cases, which are already - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5922 WP No. 26779 of 2023 rejected. Moreover in terms of amended Rules one should attain majority within one year, but he would have time of two years to file application. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on proviso to Rule 9(1A) of the Rules. The said Rule would have no application to the applicant's case, it only refers to the earlier amendment, which has taken place in the year 1999. 9. Thus I am of the considered view, that there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52 CT:SNN