- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2683-DB CCC No. 100160 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100023 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 100160 OF 2024 C/W WRIT APPEAL NO. 100023 OF 2025 (GM-RES) IN CCC NO. 100160 OF 2024: BETWEEN: 1. SRI PAVAN S/O. VIVEKANAND PANDE, AGED ABOUT: 38 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. GULAGANJIKOPPA, SHIVALLI PLOT NO.18, NEAR MARUTI TEMPLE, DHARWAD-580001 2. SRI. GUNDU S/O. PARSHURAM CHOUGALE AGED ABOUT: 35 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. KALAMESHWAR GALLI, SAVAGOAN, HOUSE NO.214, P.O. MANDOLLI, TQ. DIST. BELAGAVI-590001 3. SRI. JYOTHIBA S/O. PUNDALIK SHINDE, AGED ABOUT: 40 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. RAKASAKOPPA, BIJAGURANI, CHAWAD GALLI, TQ. DIST. BELAGAVI-590001 …COMPLAINANTS (BY SRI. S. S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2683-DB CCC No. 100160 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100023 of 2025 AND: 1. SRI SHARAT B. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD, JALA BHAVAN, NO.5, 6, I MAIN, I PHASE, B.T.M. LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560097. 2. DR. ASHA S. THE SECRETARY, KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD, JALA BHAVAN, NO.5, 6, I MAIN, I PHASE, B.T.M. LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560097. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAVAN, NEAR VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001 …ACCUSED (BY SRI. G. I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR A1 AND A2; A3 SERVED;) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W. ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,1950, PRAYING TO, INITIATE THE CONTEMPT ACTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED PERSONS FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE ORDER OF THE HON’BLE SINGLE - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2683-DB CCC No. 100160 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100023 of 2025 JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.106132/2019 DATED. 04/01/2024, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 100023 OF 2025: BETWEEN: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD, JALA BHAVAN, NO.5, 6, I MAIN, I PHASE, B.T.M. LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560097. 2. THE SECRETARY, KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD, JALA BHAVAN, NO.5, 6, I MAIN, I PHASE, B.T.M. LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560097. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VEERESH. R. BUDIHAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAVAN, NEAR VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001 2. SRI PAVAN S/O. VIVEKANAND PANDE, AGED ABOUT: 38 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. GULAGANJIKOPPA, SHIVALLI PLOT NO.18, NEAR MARUTI TEMPLE, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2683-DB CCC No. 100160 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100023 of 2025 DHARWAD-580001 3. SRI. GUNDU S/O. PARSHURAM CHOUGALE AGED ABOUT: 35 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. KALAMESHWAR GALLI, SAVAGOAN, HOUSE NO.214, P.O. MANDOLLI, TQ. DIST. BELAGAVI-590001 4. SRI. JYOTHIBA S/O. PUNDALIK SHINDE, AGED ABOUT: 40 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. RAKASAKOPPA, BIJAGURANI, CHAWAD GALLI, TQ. DIST. BELAGAVI-590001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2,R3 AND R4; SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR., AGA FOR R1; THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, CALL FOR RECORDS IN WP NO. 106132/2019 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.01.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WP NO. 106132/2019 AND ETC. THESE CIVIL CONTEMPT CASE AND WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2683-DB CCC No. 100160 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100023 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) The present dispute relates to the private respondents’ claim for compassionate appointments with the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board. The private respondents – complainants [the complainants] have invoked the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in W.P.No.106132/2019 calling in question the appellant’s decision dated 30.09.2014 on their application for appointment on compassionate grounds. The writ Court has favoured the writ petition by its order dated 04.01.2024 directing the appellants to consider the complainants’ application for appointment on compassionate grounds within 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of its order. 2. The writ Court has directed the appellants to consider the applications for appointment on compassionate grounds in the backdrop of certain observations subject to the complainants’ educational qualification and other - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2683-DB CCC No. 100160 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100023 of 2025 requirements according to the relevant rules. The writ Court’s observations essentially read as under: “An application for appointment on a compassionate basis also imposes an obligation on part of the employer to consider the said application with alacrity at the earliest and pass necessary orders thereon so as to safeguard the interest of the legal heirs of deceased employee who many a time may be put to penury on account of the expiry of a bread earner. In that background it is not open for respondent No.2 to have contended after 10 years that the petitioners had not attained the majority within one year of the death of the employee. It is expected of the employer to act in a humane manner and safeguard the interest of the legal heirs of the former deceased employee and not act in such an inhumane manner as done in the present matter. 3. This Court must observe that the writ Court has also issued certain general directions to the State Government to set up a suitable system [a software] to capture applications filed for appointment on compassionate grounds and to frame regulations and rules to consider such - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2683-DB CCC No. 100160 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100023 of 2025 applications within a reasonable time. The writ Court has also directed the State Government to provide for disciplinary proceedings in the Regulations/ Rules against the concerned if they fail to decide on the application within a reasonable time. The complainants have filed the complaint for action against the appellants under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India in CCC.No.100160/2024 on 11.06.2024. After service of notice of such complaint, the appellants have filed the present appeal calling in question the writ Court’s orders. 4. Sri. Veeresh R. Budihal and Sri. G.I. Gachchinamath, the learned counsels who appear for the appellants and complainants respectively in the appeal and in the complaint, are categorical that the appellants are not aggrieved by the general directions and the appellants would support implementation of the directions, but this Court must intervene with the direction to consider the complainants representation in the light of the observations. The learned counsels also state that after the writ Court’s - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2683-DB CCC No. 100160 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100023 of 2025 impugned order, the appellants have issued Endorsement dated 24.04.2024 informing the complainants that their applications for compassionate appointment cannot be considered for the following:- Firstly, because they are not diligent in pursuing their applications, and this defeats the underlining principle upon which compassionate appointments are granted. Secondly, if the dependent of an officer, or a Government servant, who has died in harness, is a minor as on the date of the demise of the concerned, such dependent should have completed 18 years within one year from the death and must make an application within one year thereafter. This will be mandatory under Rule 5 of KCS [Appointment on Compassionate Ground Rules, 1996 – hereafter referred to as ‘the Compassionate Appointment Rules’]], and none of the complainants have complied with these conditions. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2683-DB CCC No. 100160 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100023 of 2025 4.1 The learned counsels canvass that it is obvious from these submissions, and the canvas that are presented for this Court’s consideration in the appeal, that the appellants' grievance is confined to the writ Court’s observation that it would not be open to the appellants, after they have taken ten [10] years to reject the applications, to hold that the complainants would not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground. 4.2 Sri. 4.2 Sri. Veeresh S. Budihal submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in similar circumstances in the State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari and Others1, has found that if the application for an appointment on compassionate grounds is not considered at the earliest because either of the authority’s fault or lack of diligence in the applicants, the purpose of granting appointment on compassionate grounds would be defeated. The learned counsel, supported by Sri. G.I. Gachchinamath, also relies upon the provisions of Rule 5 of the Compassionate Appointment Rules, which read as under to contend that the 1 AIR 2023 SC 1467 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2683-DB CCC No. 100160 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100023 of 2025 complainants have not satisfied both the conditions that are mandatory and unless these two [2] conditions are satisfied, they will not be entitled for compassionate appointment. 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. Provided that in the 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. 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 Service (Appointment on - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2683-DB CCC No. 100160 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100023 of 2025 Compassionate Grounds) (Amendment) Rules, 1998.” 5. Sri. S.S. Hegde, the learned counsel for the complainants, is heard in the light of this grievance, and the learned counsel submits that the question of lack of diligence in the complainants, even if could be considered, must be considered in view of the admitted fact that the appellants informed the complainants that their request for a compassionate appointment cannot be considered immediately for want of vacancy and that they will be accommodated as and when the vacancy arise and despite communication in the year 2006 immediately after the applications, no decision is taken until 2014. 5.1 Sri. S.S. Hegde also proposes to canvas that the appellants are selective in granting appointments on compassionate ground emphasising that the material on record shows that appointment is given to those who were initially informed that they would not be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground because they have - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2683-DB CCC No. 100160 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100023 of 2025 not completed 18 years within one year from the date of the demise of the concerned. 6. This Court must consider these rival submissions in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Debabrata Tiwari's case Supra and the impact of such decisions on the appellants’ order dated 24.04.2024 though such order has not been called in question specifically. The complaint is filed stating that this order is in the teeth of the writ Court’s observations. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, after listing the principles that emerge from its different decisions, has considered whether there can be a direction for appointment on compassionate grounds if the applicants are not diligent in pursuing the application though the authorities may be responsible for the delay. 6.1 The circumstance in the case in Debabrata Tiwari Supra is brought out in paragraph 12 of the decision, which reads as under: - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2683-DB CCC No. 100160 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100023 of 2025 “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.” 6.2 The Hon’ble Apex Court has ultimately opined that in case where a sense of immediacy in the matter of compassionate appointment has been lost and delay can be attributed to the authorities as also the applicant, the applicant cannot claim any right as he/ she would have earned a living though not appointed on compassionate grounds at the earliest. The Hon’ble Apex Court’s observation reads as under: - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2683-DB CCC No. 100160 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100023 of 2025 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 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. 6.3 The complainants seek to justify the inaction on their part between 2006 [the year when they were told that they cannot be accommodated for want of vacancy] till the year 2014 when the decision was taken to reject their applications informing that they will be accommodated as and when the vacancy arises. However, they have not brought forth any circumstance that would justify their inaction from 2014 to 2019 when they approached the writ Court, calling in question the decision in 2014 to reject their application. This singular - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2683-DB CCC No. 100160 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100023 of 2025 circumstance make them blameworthy as is observed by the Apex Court. This delay will dis-entitle them to seek compassionate appointment. These circumstances have not been considered by the writ Court in opining that the respondents must appoint the complainants on compassionate grounds because they did not act for over ten [10] years. 6.4 The compassionate appointment, as reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in aforesaid decision, is a departure from the general mode of appointment, and therefore, such appointment must be strictly in accordance with the rules that govern such appointments. The Rule 5 of the Appointment on Compassionate Appointment Rules, as on the date the concerned in the complainants’ family died, stipulated that in the case of a minor dependant, [i] the minor should complete 18 years within one year from the date of demise of the concerned Government servant and [ii] within one year thereafter [i.e., within one year from the date of completing 18 years, they must make an application]. These conditions must be satisfied if appointments are to be - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2683-DB CCC No. 100160 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100023 of 2025 granted on compassionate grounds and nothing is brought on record for this Court to opine that this requirement is, or has been, diluted. 6.5 The appellants’ in their order dated 24.04.2024 have recorded the details, and these details demonstrate that the complainants have not satisfied the requirements under the Compassionate Appointment Rules. The writ Court’s impugned directions will be notwithstanding these circumstances. The appellants are therefore entitled to succeed on both grounds as against the writ Court’s direction to consider the complainants' request for appointment on compassionate grounds, but this Court must hasten to add that the direction to the first respondent to put the system in place for early consideration of the applications on compassionate appointments and for action against those officers who do not take action are not interfered with. Consequent to these findings, the complaint must be dropped, but the final question for consideration is whether the complainants, who have stood in the queue and perhaps eked out a living, are entitled for any cost payable - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2683-DB CCC No. 100160 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100023 of 2025 by the appellants because the appellants unjustifiably held out the proverbial olive branch. 6.6 This question must be considered in the light of certain indisputable facts. The authorities, even as way back as on 2006, did not reject the applications because the complainants did not satisfy the requirement of Rule 5 of the Compassionate Appointment Rules. In the year 2006, the authorities held out the proverbial olive branch in saying that the complainants cannot be accommodated because there are no vacancies and they would be accommodated as against the vacancy that would arise in the future. There is no decision for the next eight [8] years until 2014 when they rejected the application. These are significant circumstances and the appellants, in the peculiarities, must be called upon to pay costs lest it be that the authorities are encouraged to sit on the application taking advantage of the not well informed the category of applicants. This would be against the grain of the policy to grant appointments on compassionate grounds. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2683-DB CCC No. 100160 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100023 of 2025 6.7 Sri. Veeresh S. Budihal and Sri. G.I. Gachchinamath are heard in the light of this opinion, and the learned counsel submits that this Court may examine the question of imposing costs noting the fact that the complainants’ applications were pending over a period of ten [10] years with many officers being in charge, and any imposition of costs would be a burden on the public exchequer. 6.8 These circumstances could only mitigate but will not dis-entitle the complainants to costs. If indeed the cost is a burden on the exchequer because of certain officers, it would always be open to the appellants to identify such officers and take action subject to the limits under the applicable service law. This Court, taking a holistic consideration of all circumstances, is of the considered view that the appellants must ensure that a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees One Lakh Only] must be paid to each of the complainants within the time that would be allowed by this Court and with liberty to take action to recover the same - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2683-DB CCC No. 100160 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100023 of 2025 from the concerned, if indeed they are found to be responsible for the delay. In light of therefore, the following: ORDER i. The intra-Court appeal is allowed in part, and the impugned order dated 04.01.2024 in W.P.No.106132/2019 is interfered with limited to the direction to consider the complainants’ request for appointment on compassionate grounds in light of its observations upholding the endorsement dated 24.04.2024. ii. The complaint is closed, but calling upon the respondents in the complaint to pay to each of the complainants a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees one lakh only] as cost within a period of four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. iii. The complainants are permitted to file a certified copy of this Order for costs within 4 - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2683-DB CCC No. 100160 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100023 of 2025 [four] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. iv. It is needless to observe that the authorities will be at liberty to take action against the concerned if there is reason for the same. SD/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SD/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE AM/ct-vg LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 12