- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4629-DB WP No. 104859 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO.104859 OF 2024 (S-CAT) BETWEEN: GANGAMALAVVA KURI D/O. LATE MUDIYAPPA KURI, AGE ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O. BHANAPUR, TALUK. KUKNOOR, DIST. KOPPAL-583 238. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SUNITHA P.KALASOOR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, BY THE RAILWAY BOARD, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER (PERSONNEL), SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, 1ST FLOOR, EAST BLOCK, ZONAL HEADQUARTERS, RAIL SOUDHA, GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI-580 020. 3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, HUBBALLI DIVISION, OFFICE AT BHAVANINAGAR, SUVIDHA COLONY, HUBBALLI-580 023. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, (I) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.10.2023 IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00332/2022 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4629-DB WP No. 104859 of 2024 BENCH PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-‘C’. (II) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH ORIGINAL COMMUNICATION/IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.06.2021 BEARING NO.H/P-268/II/05/2021/37/MNK PASSED/ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-‘A5’. (III) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT NO.3 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-‘A4’ DATED 24.01.2020 AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order dated 19.10.2023, passed in Original Application No.170/00332/2022, by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore1, rejecting his challenge to communication dated 02.06.2024 (Annexure-A5) refusing compassionate appointment. 2. Heard learned counsel Smt.Sunitha Kalasoor for petitioner and perused the entire writ petition papers. 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4629-DB WP No. 104859 of 2024 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the father of petitioner, who was working in the South Western Railways, died in harness on 21.05.2000. It is stated that at the time of death of petitioner’s father, petitioner was aged about a year and she attained majority in the year 2018. It is stated that on attaining majority, the petitioner said to have submitted an application to respondents requesting to provide compassionate appointment. But the said application was refused to be accepted on the ground that petitioner is a child of 2nd wife of deceased-railway servant. Further, learned counsel would submit that in pursuance to the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs. V.R. TRIPATHI2, the respondents/railways came out with new rules, wherein, provision was made for compassionate ground appointment to children of 2nd wife also. It is stated that in terms of the said new rule, petitioner is said to have submitted an application requesting compassionate appointment. The said request is rejected under Annexure-A5, dated 02.06.2021, on the ground that new instructions dated 30.12.2019, are prospective in nature and the same would not apply in the case 2 (2019) 14 SCC 646 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4629-DB WP No. 104859 of 2024 of petitioner. Questioning the same, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in Original Application No.170/00332/2022. The Tribunal under impugned order has rejected the petitioner’s challenge to the endorsement, rejecting her request for compassionate appointment. Hence, petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner was a minor as on the date of death of her father and only on attaining the majority, she would become eligible for seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner submitted an application, but there is no provision for appointment of children of 2nd wife on compassionate ground. Subsequently, in terms of new rule, petitioner submitted an application, which is rejected on an erroneous ground that new instructions dated 30.12.2019 is prospective. It is contended that in terms of new instructions dated 30.12.2019, petitioner would be entitled for compassionate appointment. It is also submitted that new instructions would provide for appointment of children of 2nd wife. Learned counsel would further submit that under old instructions, there was no provision for compassionate appointment to the children of 2nd wife. When - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4629-DB WP No. 104859 of 2024 provision is made under new instructions, the writ petitioner has rightly applied for compassionate appointment. The respondents ought to have considered the case of petitioner for compassionate appointment on new instructions dated 30.12.2019, therefore, prays to allow the petition. 5. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of writ petition papers, we are of the view that the order under challenge would not suffer from any infirmity and the petitioner would not be entitled for any relief. 6. The Compassionate ground appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The compassionate ground appointment could be claimed under any rule or scheme of the institution or organization. Admittedly, there was no provision for appointment of children of 2nd wife, in the railways till 2019. Under new instructions dated 30.12.2019, provision is made for appointment on compassionate ground to the children of 2nd wife. 7. Be that as it may, the father of petitioner died while in service on 21.05.2000. As on that day, petitioner was about one year old, her date of birth being 22.08.1999. The purpose - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4629-DB WP No. 104859 of 2024 and object of providing compassionate appointment is to see that the dependents of deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis as a result of death of bread winner. In the instant case, due to passage of time, the family has overcome financial crises. The family of deceased railway servant was able to survive for last 25 years. The tribunal has rightly observed that the petitioner application is time barred and further rightly observed that instructions dated 30.12.2019 is prospective and it cannot have retrospective effect. 8. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE PMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11