- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3583 WP No. 101416 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 101416 OF 2021 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. KASHAVVA W/O LATE NINGAPPA BADIGER, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 2. SHRI BASAVARAJ S/O LATE NIINGAPPA BADIGER AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 3. SHRI. GUDDARAJ S/O LATE NINGAPPA BADIGER, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 4. KUM. SARASWATI D/O LATE NINGAPPA BADIGER, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT AMBEDKAR NAGAR, HARIJANKERI ONI, BANKAPURA TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHIGGAON TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT-581202. 5. SMT. LAKSHMAVVA @ RENUKA W/O PRABHU KATTIMANI, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, SHIGGOAN, HAVERI DISTRICT -581205. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI CLIFTON D. ROZARIO, ALONG WITH SRI D. M. MALLI, ADVOCATES) R Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3583 WP No. 101416 of 2021 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU -560001, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY. 2. DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, 9TH AND 10TH FLOOR, VISHVESHWARIAH TOWER, BENGALURU- 560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI-581202. 4. BANKAPURA TOWN MUNCIPAL COUNCIL BANKAPURA, SHIGGAON TALUK, HAVERI -581202, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF OFFICER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3, SRI K. H. BAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO 1. ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO REGULARIZE THE SERVICES OF LATE SHRI NINGAPPA BADIGERE AND TO PAY THEM BACK WAGES AND ALL CONSEQUENTIAL AND TERMINAL BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 2. ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.PUSA Bm/Nai.V./Vahi/2020- 21/106 DATED 06.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT (PLACED AS ANNEXURE-J) AS ILLEGAL MALAFIDE AND INOPERATIVE. 3. ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. GRANT SUCH OR OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3583 WP No. 101416 of 2021 ABOVE CASE INCLUDING AWARD OF COMPENSATION FOR THE INJURIES INFLICTED UPON THE PETITIONER AS ALSO COSTS IN THE ABOVE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayers: 1. Issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction to the respondents to regularize the services of Late Shri Ningappa Badigere and to pay them back wages and all consequential and terminal benefits to the petitioners in accordance with law. 2. Issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, quashing the endorsement bearing No. PuSa Bm/Nai.V./VaHi/2020-21/106 dated 06.10.2020 issued by the 4th respondent (placed as Annexure- J) as illegal malafide and inoperative. 3. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the 2nd Petitioner. 4. Grant such or other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the above case including award of compensation for the injuries inflicted upon the petitioner as also costs in the above interest of justice and equity. 2. Heard Sri Clifton D. Rozario, learned counsel for petitioners, Smt. Kirtilata R. Patil, learned HCGP for - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3583 WP No. 101416 of 2021 respondents No.1 to 3 and Sri K.H. Bagi, learned counsel for respondent No.4. 3. Facts in brief, germane are as follows: The petitioners are the wife and children of one Ningappa Badiger. The father of the petitioners No.2 to 5 was employed by the 4th respondent on daily wages, as Poura Karmika in the 4th respondent-Bankapura Town Municipal Council. The appointment comes about in the year 1995. The averment in the petition is that, it was against a sanctioned vacant post. On 02.01.1997, the State Government issues a circular entitling that compassionate appointments to the heirs of daily wage workers, who die in harness, regularization of their services pending consideration, to be considered on its merit. 4. It transpires that the father of the petitioners No.2 to 5 is continued in Bankapur Town Panchayat, with effect from 17.06.1999 pursuant to a resolution of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3583 WP No. 101416 of 2021 Panchayat, when the Panchayat was upgraded from a Town Municipal Council, to a Town Panchayat, in the year 1999. Bankapura Town Panchayat, later passes a resolution on 20.10.2000, absorbing the employees of the erstwhile Bankapura Grama Panchayat, including the services of the father of the petitioners No.2 to 5 to bring the employees under minimum wages of the post that they occupied. Therefore, he was granted equal pay for equal work as that of permanent employee. The 4th respondent-Panchayat was upgraded to Town Municipal Council and service of the father of the petitioners No.2 to 5 was again continued. The father of the petitioners No.2 to 5, on completion of 10 years of service as Poura Karmika, in the 4th respondent submits a representation seeking regularization of services on 30.11.2006. It transpires that on 06.09.2007, several of the employees, continued in Bankapura Gram Town Panchayat were regularized, but the father of the petitioners No.2 to 5 was not as by then, had come the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3583 WP No. 101416 of 2021 others1. The father of the petitioners No.2 to 5 was therefore, continued as a Poura Karmika on daily wage basis, but was always under equal pay for equal work. On 04.3.2012, the father of the petitioners No.2 to 5 dies in harness. 5. After the death of the father of the petitioners No.2 to 5, an application comes to be made by the second petitioner on 29.04.2012 seeking appointment on compassionate ground. For 8 years no order is passed. The 4th respondent issues an endorsement rejecting the claim of the second petitioner only on 06.10.2020 on the ground that the service of his father was not regularized. It is the rejection that has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition, filed without any loss of time. 6. Learned counsel Sri Clifton D. Rozario, appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that all the persons, who are appointed along with the father of the petitioners No.2 to 5, in different posts, were 1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3583 WP No. 101416 of 2021 all regularized in the year 2007, owing to the fact that they had all completed 10 years of service as on the date of consideration of their cases for regularization. The case of the father of the petitioners No.2 to 5 was not considered, but was continued in employment till the date of his death, i.e., on 04.03.2012, in harness. By then, he had completed 17 years of service in the 4th respondent Panchayat without any break or continuation was never litigious. The learned counsel would further contend that the direction should be issued to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization and on that score, consider the application of the second petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. He would seek to place reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of the State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Uttam Singh2 to buttress his submission. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the 4th respondent and the learned HCGP would in unison contend 2 (2021) 17 SCC 653 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3583 WP No. 101416 of 2021 that the case of the petitioners cannot be considered on a twin score. The first score is that the father of the petitioners No.2 to 5 was never appointed to a sanctioned vacant post. His designation was that of a Jadamali, which post was never existing in the 4th respondent, but the counsel for the 4th respondent would confirm that the father of the petitioners No.2 to 5 had joined the service in 1995, he has continued till the date of his death on 04.03.2012. The other score is that the service of the father of the petitioners No.2 to 5 was never regularized. Compassionate appointment is not a right to claim, in any and every case unless, the father of the petitioners No.2 to 5 had been regularized. The claim of the petitioners for compassionate appointment cannot even be put forth, is the submission of both the HCGP and counsel for the 4th respondent. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for parties and have perused the material on record. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3583 WP No. 101416 of 2021 9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue is, whether the second petitioner would be entitled for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds. Certain dates are required to be reiterated. In 1995, the father of the petitioners No.2 to 5 is appointed as Poura Karmika in the 4th respondent, the then Bankapura Gram Panchayat. A circular came be issued by the State on 02.01.1997 to consider those applications seeking appointment on compassionate grounds of those employees who die in harness, just before regularization orders could be passed. The circular reads as follows : “PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ ¸ÀASÉå:¹C¸ÀÄE 11 £Éà C£ÉÃ95 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¸ÀaªÁ®AiÀÄ «zsÁ£À ¸ËzsÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 02.01.1997. «µÀAiÀÄ: ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ ¸ÉêÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀr¸ÀĪÀ ªÉÆzÀ¯Éà ªÀÄÈvÀ ºÉÆA¢zÀªÀgÀ CªÀ®A©vÀjUÉ C£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¤ÃqÀĪÀ §UÉÎ. *** ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: r¦JDgï 2 J£ï.J¯ï.¹ 90, ¢£ÁAP 06.08.90 ºÁUÀÆ EzÀPÉÌ PÁ®PÁ®PÉÌ, ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ªÀiÁ¥ÁðqÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀéAiÀÄ, ¢£ÀUÉÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƽ¸À¯ÁUÀÄwÛzÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ6-8-90gÀ ¸ÀzÀj DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß, C¢üPÀÈvÀ eÁÕ¥À£À ¸ÀASÉå: r¦JDgï 34 J¸ï.J¯ï.¹ 90, ¢£ÁAPÀ, 4-12-90gÀ PÀArPÉ 5 gÉÆA¢UÉ N¢PÉÆAqÀAvÉ, ¢£ÁAPÀ 1-7-1984QÌAvÀ ªÀÄÄAZÉ £ÉêÀÄPÀªÁVzÀÄÝ ¢£ÁAPÀ 31-12-89 gÀAzÀÄ ºÀvÀÄÛ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸À°è¹zÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ 1-1-90 jAzÀ (¥ÀƪÁð£ÀéAiÀĪÁV) - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3583 WP No. 101416 of 2021 ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƽ¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ. EzÉà jÃw ¢£ÁAPÀ 1-7-1984QÌAvÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ £ÉêÀÄPÀªÁVzÀÄÝ, ¢£ÁAPÀ 31.12.89 gÀAzÀÄ ºÀvÀÄÛªÀµÀðUÀ¼À ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸À°è¸ÀzÉà EgÀĪÀ ¢£ÀUÉÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ ¸ÉêÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CªÀgÀÄ ºÀvÀÄÛ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸À°è¹zÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƽ¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ. DzÀgÉ, DqÀ½vÁvÀäPÀ PÁgÀtUÀ½AzÁV, ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À°è ºÀvÀÄÛ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À ¸ÉêÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄV¹zÀ vÀPÀët ¸ÀPÀæªÀiÁw DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀr¸À®Ä ¸ÁzsÀåªÁUÀÄwÛ®è. F jÃw PÁ¯ÁªÀPÁ±À' »rAiÀÄĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ºÀ®ªÀÅ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À°è, CAvÀºÀ ¸ÀPÀæªÀiÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀƪÁð£ÀéAiÀÄ¢AzÀ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁUÀÄwÛzÉ ¸ÀPÀæªÀiÁw ºÉÆAzÀ®Ä CºÀð«zÀÄÝ, ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀ DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¸ÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ ªÀÄÄAZÉ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀlÖ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À°è C£ÀÄPÀA¥À DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¤ÃqÀĪÀ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆa¹zÉ. 2. ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀAvÉ, ¢£ÁAPÀ 1-7-1964 QÌAvÀ ªÀÄÄAZÉ £ÉêÀÄPÀªÁzÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÀzÀ, ¢£ÁAPÀ 6-8-1990gÀ ¸ÀzÀj DzÉñÀzÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¸ÀPÀæªÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀƪÁð£ÀéAiÀÄ¢AzÀ ªÀiÁrzÀÝ°è CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ D ¥ÀƪÁð£ÀéAiÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ¯Éà ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀgÁUÀÄvÁÛgÉ' ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƽ¹zÀ DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¸ÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ ªÉÆzÀ°UÉ, CzÀgÀ ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƽ¹ ¥ÀƪÁð£ÀéAiÀĪÁV eÁjUÉ PÉÆnÖzÀÝ ¢£ÁAPÀzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀgÁVzÀÝ®è CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ D ¢£ÁAPÀzÀAzÀÄ, (CAzÀgÉ ¥ÀƪÁð£ÀéAiÀĪÁV eÁjUÉÀ PÉÆnÖzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀzÀAzÀÄ) ¸ÀPÁðj, £ËPÀgÀgÀgÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¹, CªÀgÀ CªÀ®A©vÀjUÉ, ¢£ÁAPÀ 12-06-96gÀ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£É ¸ÀASÉå r¦.JDgï 100 J¸ï¹J 95 gÀ°è£À C£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁwUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C£Àé¬Ä¸À§ºÀÄzÁVzÉ. 3. C£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ J¯Áè ¥Áæ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ F CA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß UÀªÀÄ£ÀzÀ°èlÄÖPÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÉ. ¸À»/- JA. ªÉAPÀlgÁªÀÄAiÀÄå ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢üãÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð-1 ¹C¸ÀÄE(¸ÉêÁ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ)” (Emphasis added) The said circular of the Government was slightly qualified. The qualification was that the employees who die in harness should have been appointed between 01.07.1984 to 06.08.1990. The father of the petitioners No.2 to 5 then continued in service. The continuance is not in dispute, it being uninterrupted continuance is also a matter of record. The father of the petitioners No.2 to 5 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3583 WP No. 101416 of 2021 then dies in harness on 04.03.2012. Immediately thereafter the second petitioner submits an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds i.e., on 29.04.2012. All the aforesaid facts are a matter of record or admitted facts. On 06.10.2020, after about 8 years, the application of the second petitioner, comes to be rejected solely on the ground that the father of the petitioners No.2 to 5 was not regularized. The petitioners then present the subject petition. 10. The issue now as observed would be whether the application of the second petitioner should be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. In somewhat similar circumstance in the Apex Court in the case of Uttam Singh (supra). The Apex Court has held as follows: “2. The father of the respondent had earlier waged a legal battle against the appellant- Department arising out of his endeavour to get his appointment post his selection for the post of Tubewell Operator. The High Court in the impugned order opined that the selection process of the father of the respondent was unambiguous and against the regular vacancy whereby he had submitted all the requisite documents to the Irrigation Department. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3583 WP No. 101416 of 2021 The case of the respondent is that the appellants held up this issue over six years and the actual appointment took place only on 29.01.2003. The respondent’s father continued to work and draw emoluments for a period of 13 years equivalent to the regular pay-scale till he unfortunately passed away on 09.03.2016. 3. The case of the respondent is also that in identical matters, the appellants have appointed one Balram and one Smt. Geeta Devi, whose father and husband respectively died in harness, as Part Time Tubewell Operators and many other candidates of whose record is not available. The respondent argues that he was singled out in being denied the benefit possibly on account of the earlier litigation between the father of the respondent and the appellant- Department. 4. The case of the appellants is that the father of the respondent had not been regularized and merely grant of equivalent benefits on the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ would not make him regular employee and thus the respondent is not entitled to the benefit of the Rules for compassionate employment. In this behalf reference is made to the judgment of this Court in Gen. Manager, Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan vs Laxmi Devi & Ors. (2009) 7 SCC 205 stated to be dealing with the very Rule in question. It will be useful to reproduce the relevant extract of the Rules where Rule 2 (a)(iii) reads as under : “ 2.Definitions- (i) XXXX (ii) XXXX (iii) though not regularly appointed, had put in three years’ continuous service in regular vacancy in such employment; Explanation- “regularly appointed” means appointed in accordance with the procedure laid down for recruitment to the post of service, as the case may be;” 5. Thus the respondent contends that since his father was employed for more than 3 years in continuous service, he was bound to be considered as a Government Servant - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3583 WP No. 101416 of 2021 and thus the benefit should extend to the respondent. On the other hand, relying upon the aforesaid judgment where the same Rules have been analyzed, learned Senior counsel for the appellants seeks to contend that this Court opined that a person not regularly appointed but who had otherwise put in 3 years continuous service in a regular vacancy cannot mean to imply that a Daily Wager would get the benefit of the Rule. We may, however, note that the Court had opined on the facts of that case holding that benefit would not accrue to the respondent. The regular vacancy was held to mean a vacancy which occurred in posts sanctioned by the competent authority. The service of the deceased employee had not actually been regularized though they have claimed regularization. The fact that the deceased employee was drawing salary in a regular pay- scale was held not to mean that they are against a regular vacancy. 6. We may note an interesting aspect pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, inter alia, in his synopsis (as usual the appellants did not consider it appropriate to assist this Court by filing a synopsis as had been directed vide the last order, apart from the note on the cause list!). The respondent has stated that during the period of 13 years of the employment of the father of the respondent, he was transferred from the Irrigation Department to Panchayati Raj Department as ‘Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari’ and vice versa, i.e, he was transferred 2 or 3 times by the appellants and was even appointed as a polling officer by State Election Commission on 15.10.2015, 26.11.2015 and 03.12.2015. It is thus the submission that there could not have been such inter- departmental transfers and re-transfers if the father of the respondent was not being considered as a regular employee. Not only that, it is contended that there would possibly be no case where a person is deployed under the Representation of People Act, 1951, who is not a Government employee. This is apart from the fact that the respondent’s father was the operator of 2 Government tubewells which was stated to be equivalent to the job of a regular tubewell operator i.e., a 9 a.m. to 5. P.m., which some times ran over more than 8 hours, subject to the demand of farmers. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants however gives an explanation by stating that these persons were originally - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3583 WP No. 101416 of 2021 deployed as Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari, transferred and re-transferred back and the challenge to the same was repelled in U.P. Gram Panchayat Adhikari vs Daya Ram Saroj .. 8. If we turn to the impugned order of the Division Bench, the High Court has taken note of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court which is in consonance with the view propounded by this Court in the case of Gen. Manager, Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan vs Laxmi Devi & Ors, (2009) 7 SCC 205 (supra)1. However, it noted the contention that though the father of the respondent was termed as a Part Time tubewell operator but he was always treated as a regular employee. The Court took note of the rule referred to aforesaid and the explanation given thereto which requires that an appointment with procedure laid down for recruitment to the post or the service. The order of appointment in the case of the father of the respondent has 1 Pavan Kumar Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2010) 18 ADJ 664 been found to be unambiguous in its terms in accordance with norms after verification of all his certificates. A complete process of selection was conducted by the appellants as the employer. At the first instance, appointment was denied to him on account of he not being a resident of the command area of the tubewell concerned but this ground was found unsustainable by the judicial view taken by the High Court by an earlier order dated 29.01.2003 and consequently the father of the respondent was appointed. It is in these given facts of the case that it has been found that the benefit should be made available to the respondent under the Rules. The facts have been found sufficient by the High Court to come to the conclusion that the appointment of the father of the respondent was against a regular vacancy and that is why in that background from the inception regular pay-scale was allowed to him and he thus satisfied the parameters of the Rules aforesaid. 9. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court in the given factual scenario. We may say, it appears that the appellants, for reasons best known to them, endeavoured to deny - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3583 WP No. 101416 of 2021 the father of the respondent his dues even though the appointment was through a proper process. The High Court opined against the manner in which the father of the respondent was denied employment. That is the reason that from the very inception he was given the benefits of a regular employee while designating him as a Part Time tubewell operator. The High Court has found that these facts show that the appointment was against the regular vacancy though it continued to be termed as a ‘Part Time’ appointment apart from the fact that his work hours were of a regular employee entitling him to equal pay for equal work. 10. We have also taken note of the fact that during his 13 long years of employment and before that having battled the appellants for the period of 6 years to get his dues, the father of the respondent was also transferred from one department to the other, normally an aspect which would be associated with a person who had a regular employment. The most significant aspect is that had the father of the respondent not been considered a regular appointee, there would be no occasion for the Department to volunteer his services to the State Election Commission to perform election duties, which could have been done only by a Government employee, as is specified under Section 159 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (“Staff of certain authorities to be made available for election work”). 11. The present case is thus one which is peculiar in its given factual scenario which we have discussed above and thus for all practical purposes, it is a case of an appointment against a regular vacancy. The respondent’s father was treated as a regular employee by the aforesaid conduct of the appellants even though he was labelled as a Part Time tubewell operator. 12. We may like to further say that from the illustrations given by the appellants, at least 2 persons, as noted before, were employed in a similar scenario i.e., Balram and Smt. Geeta Devi whose father and husband respectively died in harness as Part Time tubewell operators. It is quite obvious that there is an discrimination against the respondent possibly arising from the previous - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3583 WP No. 101416 of 2021 litigation between the appellants and the deceased father of the respondent. There is no satisfactory explanation for the same and we cannot permit the appellant-Department to harass the respondent in this manner.” (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court holds that employees who were designated as part time employees, working on a regular basis, and die in harness, should be construed to be regular employees, and thereby, entitling the respondent therein to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. 11. If the application of the second petitioner had met its consideration in the year 2012 itself, the second petitioner would have known his fate, for challenging the same. The 4th respondent keeps it for 8 long years and for the first time, rejects the application in the year 2020. The petitioners are therefore before this Court immediately. Therefore, by keeping the application pending for long time, now the State cannot project that the family has survived for all these years without the earning of the sole breadwinner of the family and therefore, the - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3583 WP No. 101416 of 2021 compassionate appointment cannot be considered. It would have been altogether a different circumstance, if the application itself had been filed after 8 years. The application is filed within 45 days after the death and it is kept pending for 8 long years. In such circumstances, this Court in Hruthik N. and others vs. The Deputy Director of Public Instructions (Administration), Mysuru District and others3 has held as follows: “1. Petitioners in this writ petition call in question the endorsement dated 23-12-2020, bearing No.G1/164168/Anukampa/144/2017-18, declining to grant an appointment on compassionate grounds to the 1st petitioner and have sought for consequential direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the 1st petitioner for an appointment on compassionate grounds qua his qualification. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:- The father of the 1st petitioner and husband of the 2nd petitioner - Sri K. Ningaraju was working as Head Master in the Institute of Education High School, Kuvempu Nagar at Mysore and on 11-09-2015, he died in harness. On the death of the sole bread winner of the family, the petitioners sought an appointment on compassionate grounds to the 1st petitioner. This having not been considered favourably, the petitioners approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos.39921 and 42771 of 2018. This 3 W.P No.9564/2021 disposed on 12TH JULY, 2021 - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3583 WP No. 101416 of 2021 Court by its order dated 12-12-2018, quashed the endorsement therein, which denied an appointment to the 1st petitioner and directed consideration of representations made on 28-10-2016 and 20-08-2018 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of 8 weeks. 3. It is pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the respondents again turned down the claim of the petitioners for an appointment on compassionate grounds to the 1st petitioner by the impugned endorsement dated 23.12.2020 on the ground that the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Recruitment and terms and conditions of service of employees in Private Aided Primary and Secondary Educational Institutions) (Amendment) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ for short) have come into force with effect from 26-09-2017, in terms of which number of posts of Second Division Assistants to be appointed has been modified and for minimum three sections of VIII, IX and X standards irrespective of total number of sections in a school, it was restricted to one Second Division Assistant. Contending that the Rules have come into force and the claim of the petitioners cannot be considered in the light of the Rules which declare only one post of Second Division Assistant available for three sections, the case of the 1st petitioner cannot be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. It is this endorsement that is called in question in the subject writ petition. 4. Heard Smt. Ashwini Obulesh, learned counsel for petitioners and Smt. M.C. Nagashree, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. ….. …. …. 14. The submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate that 6 years have passed by after the death of the breadwinner of the family and the need for compassionate appointment now no longer exists on account of delay of 6 years is unacceptable. The delay is not attributable to the petitioners as the application for compassionate appointment was given within two months after the date of death of the father. After submission of the - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3583 WP No. 101416 of 2021 said representation certain documents were directed to be furnished by the petitioners, which took considerable time for the petitioners to apply and get the same. Even then, the petitioners were representing to the authorities for such consideration as observed by this Court in the earlier round of proceedings instituted by the petitioners (supra). Even otherwise, it is the form of the application that the respondents had found fault with and not the claim, be that as it may. It is on this erroneous action on the part of the State that the claim is dragged on for this long. In view of the preceding analysis, the case of the 1st petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds will have to be re-considered by the State without again driving the petitioners to the Court for redressal of their grievance. 15. This Court in umpteen number of cases, has come across the authorities not considering the applications given seeking appointment on compassionate grounds immediately notwithstanding the need for appointment lying in its immediacy. Keeping the application pending for years or months will defeat the very object of framing the Rule for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds. It is trite that a family which loses its breadwinner would be driven to impecuniosities or become condemned by penury. Therefore, the need for immediate consideration of such representations/applications for appointment on compassionate grounds is paramount. 16. The Rule that enables an applicant file an application for appointment is Rule 5 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, which reads as follows: “5. Application for appointment : Every dependent of a deceased Government Servant, seeking appointment under these rules shall make an application within one year from the date of death of the Government servant, in such form, as may be notified by the Government, from time to time, to the Head of the Department under whom the deceased Government servant was working: 1[Provided that in the - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3583 WP No. 101416 of 2021 case of a minor he must have attained the age of eighteen years within one year from the date of the death of the Government servant and he must make an application within one year thereafter:] 2[Provided further that nothing in the first proviso shall apply to an application made by the dependent of a deceased Government Servant, after attaining majority and which was pending for consideration on the date of commencement of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Amendment) Rules, 1998.] “ (Emphasis supplied) It is the aforesaid Rule which enables consideration of appointment on compassionate grounds and mandates application to be made within one year from the date of death of the Government servant. Sub-Rule (1) and (2) of Rule 6 also mandates that in terms of the applications given the same shall be considered as far as possible within three months from the date of receipt of an application under Rule 5. Sub-Rule (1) and (2) of Rule 6 of the Rules, read as follows: “6. Appointment by the Competent Authority :- (1) On receipt of the application under Rule 5, the Head of the Department, if satisfied that the applicant fulfills all the conditions specified under these rules, shall appoint, where he is the Appointing Authority, and if not direct the appropriate Appointing Authority to issue the order of appointment. (2) The appointment under sub-rule (1) shall be made as far as possible within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application under Rule 5.” (Emphasis supplied) The afore-extracted Rule mandates that an application made under Rule 5 shall be considered and appointment under Sub- Rule (1) shall be made as far as possible within three months. This has all along remained only on paper and is seldom implemented by the State, most conspicuously seldom in the cases that are brought before the Court. These very Rules bind the applicants to give an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3583 WP No. 101416 of 2021 within one year from the date of death. If Rule 5 is binding on an applicant, sub- Rule (2) of Rule 6 would become binding on the State as well. The adage “what sauce is good for the goose is good for the gander” in the circumstances is apposite. 17. Therefore, if giving of an application within one year is held to be mandatory and binding on the applicant in terms of Rule 5, so would be sub-Rule (2) of Rule 6 upon the State and its instrumentalities. Though the Rule employs the words ‘as far as possible’ it is preceded by the word “shall”. Looking at the mandatory duty cast upon the applicant to file an application within one year from the date of death of the bread winner, the same duty is required to be mandatorily followed by the State in terms of sub- rule (2) of Rule-6 in the wake of the object of framing the rule and the duty that enjoins such object. Therefore, the Rule that directs appointment shall be made as far as possible within a period of three months cannot but be held to be mandatory. Therefore, the authority empowered to consider applications for compassionate appointment shall consider and dispose the same within the mandate of sub- Rule (2) of Rule 6 i.e., three months from the date of receipt of the application. Any unreasoned or unjustifiable delay on the part of the Authority competent to consider would make such Authority personally responsible to pay damages to such applicant by way of wages that the applicant would be entitled to, if an appointment had been considered and granted. (Emphasis supplied) In the light of both the issues being answered one by the illustration of the Apex Court and the other by this Court quoted (supra), the application of the second - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3583 WP No. 101416 of 2021 petitioner should merit, reconsideration at the hands of the respondent. Thus, the petition deserves to succeed. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, the following : ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 06.10.2020 issued by the respondent No.4 stands quashed. (iii) The respondents shall now reconsider the case of the second petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order by passing necessary orders, in accordance with law. (iv) Any document that is necessary from the hands of the petitioners for resolution of the lis could be solicited. - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3583 WP No. 101416 of 2021 (v) The said order shall be complied within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. SD/- ____________________ JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA NAA/CT-GTB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11