- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1822 WP No. 102597 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO.102597 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. RATNAVVA W/O. LATE ASHOK GADDI, AGE: 44 YEARS, R/O: BEHIND AMBEDKAR SCHOOL, KENGERI ROAD, POST. MURAGOD TQ: BAILHONGAL. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. BINDU GANACHARI AND SRI KARTIK GANACHARI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. HUBBALLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD, R/BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HESCOM, P.B.ROAD, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI - 580 025. 2. HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, R/BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELE, O AND M DIVISION, BAILHONGAL - 591102, DIST: BELAGAVI. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1822 WP No. 102597 of 2024 3. THE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCE) KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., KPTCL BOARD OFFICE, KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009. 4. HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, R/BY ITS SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ELE, O AND M DIVISION, NEHRU NAGAR, DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A.S.R.NAMAZI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28/11/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND RELEASE THE PENSIONARY BENEFITS AND OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR SUCH OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE ORDER/ENDORSEMENT DATED 24/09/2008 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-J CONSEQUENTLY, DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER FOR COMPENSATORY APPOINTMENT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1822 WP No. 102597 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: “i. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 28/11/2023 vide Annexure-K and release the pensionary benefits and other consequential benefits to the petitioner, in the interest of justice and equity. ii. Issue a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ or order or direction, quashing the order/endorsement dated 24/09/2008 passed by the 4th respondent vide Annexure-J consequently, direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compensatory appointment, in the interest of justice and equity. iii. Pass such any other orders as deemed fit by his Hon’ble court facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. This Court on 22.01.2025 had passed the following order: “The petitioner is before this Court seeking appointment on compassionate grounds to herself on the death of the sole breadwinner, her husband, who died in harness. The death has happened in the year 2007 and the petition is preferred in the year 2024. Therefore, the need for appointment on compassionate grounds has somewhat diluted today. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1822 WP No. 102597 of 2024 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite passage of 17 years, the petitioner has not been given all the terminal benefits that an employee, of the kind of her husband, would be entitled. Therefore the respondent shall secure instructions and produce the record with regard to the terminal benefits that are disbursed to the petitioner on the death of her husband, by the next date of hearing. List the matter on 29.01.2025 in the fresh matters list.” 3. Learned counsel for the respondent files a memo with regard to payment of terminal benefits to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions submits that what has been filed along with the memo has been paid, but there are certain other dues that are to be paid to the petitioner. If that be so, it is for the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondent-HESCOM and for the HESCOM to consider and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. 5. The claim for the petitioner is also for appointment on compassionate grounds. It is said that the death of the husband is in harness in the year 2007 and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1822 WP No. 102597 of 2024 subject petition is preferred in the year 2024 seeking a direction to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. The petition is preferred after 17 years of the death of the breadwinner of the family. At this stage, directing appointment on compassionate grounds, would run foul to the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of J&K and Others vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir1. “10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the appeal should be allowed. Certain facts are not in dispute. The father of the applicant who was in service, died in harness in March, 1987 and for the first time, the application was made by the applicant after more than four years i.e. in September, 1991. The family thus survived for more than four years after the death of the applicant's father. Even at that time, the applicant, under the relevant guidelines, could not have been appointed and hence relaxation was prayed. It is no doubt true that the case of the applicant was favourably considered by the Departments and recommendation was made, but it is also a fact which has come on record that in March, 1996, a decision was taken by the authorities not to give appointment to the applicant on compassionate ground. From the affidavit in reply filed by the authorities in the High Court as also from the finding of the learned single Judge, it is clear that the applicant had knowledge about rejection of his application in 1996 itself. Nothing was done by the applicant against the said decision. Considerable period elapsed and only in 1999, when there was some inter- Departmental 1 (2006) 5 SCC 766. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1822 WP No. 102597 of 2024 communication and Administrative Officer informed the Chief Engineer vide a letter dated 8th June, 1999 that the applicant could not be appointed on compassionate ground that the applicant woke up and filed a writ petition in the High Court. It is also pertinent to note that the letter of 1999 itself recites that the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment was considered and the prayer had already been turned down by the Administrative Department and the said fact had been communicated to the office of the Chief Engineer. A copy of the said letter was also annexed to the letter of 1999. In our opinion, therefore, the learned single Judge was right in dismissing the petition on the ground of delay and laches by holding that the applicant had not done anything for a considerable period after March, 1996 when his claim was rejected even though he was informed about the decision and was very much aware of it. The Division Bench, in our view, was not justified in setting aside the said order and in directing the authorities to consider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment and by giving directions to give other benefits. 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. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1822 WP No. 102597 of 2024 12. In State of Haryana and Ors. v. Rani Devi and Anr.2, it was held that the claim of applicant for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premise that he was dependant on the deceased- employee. Strictly this claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution. However, such claim is considered reasonable as also allowable on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of the employee who had served the State and died while in service. That is why it is necessary for the authorities to frame rules, regulations or to issue such administrative instructions which can stand the test of Articles 14 and 16. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 13. In LIC of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar3, it was indicated that High Courts and Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointments on compassionate grounds when the regulations framed in respect thereof do not cover and contemplate such appointments. 14. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana4, 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 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 2 (1996) 5 SCC 308 3 (1994) 2 SCC 718. 4 (1994) 4 SCC 138. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1822 WP No. 102597 of 2024 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 Sushma Gosain v. Union of India5, 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 Commr. of Public Instructions v. K.R. Vishwanath6, 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, 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 5 (1989) 4 SCC 468. 6 (2005) 7 SCC 206. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1822 WP No. 102597 of 2024 Division Bench, in our view, hence ought not to have allowed the appeal. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be allowed and it is accordingly allowed. The order passed by the Division Bench is set aside and that of the learned single Judge is restored. In other words, the petition filed by the respondent herein applicant before the learned single Judge is ordered to be dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.” 6. In that light the claim for compassionate appointment stands rejected. 7. In the light of the terminal benefits being paid as observed herein above, the petition would stand disposed, leaving open to the petitioner to submit representation. In the event, any other claim of the petitioner qua payment of terminal benefits still subsists. 8. For the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed. Ordered accordingly Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE RHR/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3