- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19441-DB WP No. 34878 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 34878 OF 2024 (S-CAT) BETWEEN: RAJESH ASHOK GOLAPPAGOL, S/O. SHRI. ASHOK GOLAPPAGOL, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, C/O. SHANKAR MANGALAGATTI, 112/1, PLOT NO. 62, SHRIDEVI NILAYA, ATMANAD LAYOUT, NEAR TAPOVAN, DHARWAD - 580 003. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. TARSEM CHAND GUPTA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE FINANCE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 2. PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNATAKA AND GOA REGION, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. PRAMOD, CGC FOR R1) Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19441-DB WP No. 34878 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO THAT THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 14.10.2024 IN OA No-64/2023 ANNEXURE-A, MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE WP MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT IN A JUDICIOUS FAIR AND TRANSPARENT MANNER FROM DUE DATE, WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 14.10.2024 in O.A.64/2023 (Annexure-A) rejecting his request to provide compassionate appointment, is before this court in this writ petition. 2. Heard learned counsel Mr.Tarsem Chand Gupta appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel Mr.B.Pramod, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the writ petition papers. 3. The petitioner claims that his father who was working in respondent No.2's office died in the year 1999, at - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19441-DB WP No. 34878 of 2024 that point of time, the petitioner was minor. On attaining the age of majority in the year 2005, he is said to have made application seeking compassionate appointment. 4. On the said application, information was sought from time to time and under endorsement dated 06.05.2020 (Annexure-A1), the request of the petitioner to provide compassionate ground appointment is rejected. Questioning the same, the petitioner was before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal vide impugned order dated 14.10.2024 rejected the petitioner's application. Questioning the same, the petitioner is before this court. 5. On going through the impugned order, it is seen that the application of the petitioner is mainly dismissed on the ground of delay of 16 years in approaching the tribunal. 6. The tribunal has observed that the cause of action arose to the petitioner on 30.08.2006 but the petitioner approached the Tribunal only in the year 2023. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19441-DB WP No. 34878 of 2024 7. We do not find any irregularity or error in the judgment passed by the tribunal dismissing the application on the ground of delay of 16 years in approaching the tribunal. 8. The object of providing compassionate ground appointment is to overcome immediate financial difficulty by the dependants of the deceased government servant or bread earner. 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in STATE OF WEST BENGAL v/s DEBABRATA TIWARI AND OTHERS reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 219 in an identical fact situation wherein an application for compassionate appointment was made and several years thereafter approached the Court by filing writ petition. In the said circumstance, the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraphs 44, 45 and 46 has observed as follows: 44. As noted in the said case, the operation of a policy/scheme for compassionate appointment is founded on considerations of immediacy. A sense of immediacy is called for not only in the manner in which the applications are processed by the concerned authorities but also in the conduct of the applicant in pursuing his case, before the authorities and if needed before the Courts. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19441-DB WP No. 34878 of 2024 45. In the present case, the applications for compassionate appointment were made by the Respondents-Writ Petitioners in the year 2005-2006. Admittedly, the first concrete step taken by the Chairman of the Burdwan Municipality was in the year 2013, when the said authority forwarded a list of candidates to be approved by the Director of Local Bodies, Burdwan Municipality. The Respondents-Writ Petitioners knocked on the doors of the High Court of Calcutta only in the year 2015, i.e., after a lapse of nearly ten years from the date of making the application for compassionate appointment. The Respondents-Writ Petitioners were not prudent enough to approach the Courts sooner, claiming that no concrete step had been taken by the Appellant- State in furtherance of the application by seeking a Writ in the nature of Mandamus. 46. The sense of immediacy in the matter of compassionate appointment has been lost in the present case. This is attributable to the authorities of the Appellant-State as well as the Respondents- Writ Petitioners. Now, entertaining a claim which was made in 2005-2006, in the year 2023, would be of no avail, because admittedly, the Respondents-Writ Petitioners have been able to eke out a living even though they did not successfully get appointed to the services of the Municipality on compassionate - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19441-DB WP No. 34878 of 2024 grounds. Hence, we think that this is therefore not fit cases to direct that the claim of the Respondents- Writ Petitioners for appointments on compassionate grounds, be considered or entertained. 10. In the instant case, if the petitioner was able to survive for more than 15 years, the conclusion would be that the petitioner was/is not in need of compassionate appointment. We do not see any error in the judgment passed by the tribunal. There is no merit in the petition. Accordingly, petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33 CT: BHK