- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2518 WP No. 106329 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 106329 OF 2018 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SHANTABAI W/O LATE DHARMANNA RATHOD AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: PLOT NO.122/A/3/4, WARD NO.X- C/O K.G. NAIK, ADVOCATE, RENUKA NIVAS, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, BAGALKOTE-587101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. Y R JOGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA REPTD. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, HUBBALLI-580020. 2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RFP, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, HUBBALLI-580020. 3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RPF, SECURITYI COMMISSIONER, SECURITY DEPARTMENT, SECUNDERABAD, AP. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VENKATESH M KHARVI, DSGI) Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2518 WP No. 106329 of 2018 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO:-DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO CONSIDER THE ANNEXURE-"A' DATED 16.07.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND ACT FOR PROVIDING APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE RESPONDENT NO.3. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B GROUP’, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing consideration of her representation for appointment on compassionate grounds to her grandson. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Y.R.Yogi appearing for the petitioner and the learned DGSI Sri.Venkatesh M. Kharvi appearing for the respondents. 3. The husband of the petitioner was a Constable in the Reserve Police Force (RPF) is said to have died in harness in the year 1998. The family does not seek appointment on compassionate grounds immediately. Time passes by, the grandson comes of age. Realizing the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2518 WP No. 106329 of 2018 fact that the grandson is now more than 18 years submits representation on 16.07.2018, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds to her grandson. This is not considered and therefore the petitioner is at the doors of this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing consideration of the case of the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner takes this Court through the Rule concerning Compassionate Appointment, to contend that in exceptional circumstances compassionate appointment can be given at any point in time even if there is an earning member in the family or there is no earning member in the family, that is immaterial, is his submission and seeks that a mandamus must be issued to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing the respondent would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the petitioner-wife has submitted her first - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2518 WP No. 106329 of 2018 representation after 20 years of the death of the sole breadwinner of the family, therefore, the consideration cannot be made at this length in time that too seeking appointment to the grandson. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to submissions made by the respective counsels. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The employee i.e., the Constable in the Reserve Police Force dies in harness on 19.04.1998. After the death, the family keeps quiet. Twenty years passes by, the grandson has now come of age to seek appointment on compassionate grounds. Therefore submits a representation on 16.07.1998. If a direction is issued to consider the representation of the petitioner in the aforesaid facts, it would become a mockery of law. Compassionate appointment cannot be sought after a considerable length of time when the family has been able to sustain itself with the loss of the breadwinner. But even issuing a mandamus to consider the representation of the petitioner would run foul of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2518 WP No. 106329 of 2018 J&K vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir reported in (2006) 5 SCC 766, wherein the Apex Court held as follows: “11. We may also observe that when the Division Bench of the High Court was considering the case of the applicant holding that he had sought 'compassion', the Bench ought to have considered the larger issue as well and it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment in Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of sole bread earner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the set back. Once it is proved that in spite of death of bread earner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say 'goodbye' to normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. 12. xxx 13.xxx 14. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & Ors. [(1994) 4 SCC 138], it was ruled that public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and on merits. The appointment on compassionate ground cannot be a source of recruitment. It is merely an exception to the requirement of law keeping in view the fact of the death of employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases, the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis. Such appointments on compassionate ground, therefore, have to be made in accordance with - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2518 WP No. 106329 of 2018 rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. This favorable treatment to the dependant of the deceased employee must have clear nexus with the object sought to be achieved thereby, i.e. relief against destitution. At the same time, however, it should not be forgotten that as against the destitute family of the deceased, there are millions and millions of other families which are equally, if not more, destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectation, and the change in the status and affairs of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment, which are suddenly upturned. 15. In Smt. Sushma Gosain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [(1989) 4 SCC 468], it was observed that in claims of appointment on compassionate grounds, there should be no delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread-earner in the family. Such appointments should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. 16. Recently, in Commissioner of Public Instructions & Ors. v. K.R. Vishwanath, [(2005) 7 SCC 206], one of us (Pasayat, J.) had an occasion to consider the above decisions and the principles laid down therein have been reiterated. 17. In the case on hand, the father of the applicant died in March, 1987. The application was made by the applicant after four and half years in September, 1991 which was rejected in March, 1996. The writ petition was filed in June, 1999 which was dismissed by the learned single Judge in July, 2000. When the Division Bench decided the matter, more than fifteen years had passed from the date of death of the father of the applicant. The said fact was indeed a relevant and material fact which went to show that the family survived in spite of death of the employee. Moreover, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2518 WP No. 106329 of 2018 in our opinion, the learned single Judge was also right in holding that though the order was passed in 1996, it was not challenged by the applicant immediately. He took chance of challenging the order in 1999 when there was inter- departmental communication in 1999. The Division Bench, in our view, hence ought not to have allowed the appeal.” 8. In the light of the aforesaid facts of the representation seeking compassionate appointment being tendered 20 years after the death of the breadwinner, no ground is made to even issue a mandamus to consider the said claim at the hands of the respondent. 9. Finding no merit in the petition, petition stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KGK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 114