- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14123 WP No. 106220 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 106220 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. JYOTI W/O SHRIDHAR KAMBLE AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O SHIRAGUPPI, ATHANI TALUK BELAGAVI DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SANJANA S.MUDHOL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU – 1 PIN – 560 001. 2. THE UNDER SECRETARY (PROUD) DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY, M.S.BUILDING BENGLAURU – 560 001. 3. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION DHARWAD, PIN - 580 007. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION BELAGAVI NORTH, CHIKKODI AT CHIKKODI DIST. BELAGAVI – 590 001. Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14123 WP No. 106220 of 2025 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER ATHANI, AT ATHANI TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI – 591 304. 6. THE VIDYAVARDAK SAMITI G.N.K.HIGH SCHOOL SATTI R/BY ITS CHAIRMAN, AT SATTI TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI – 591 240. 7. THE HEAD MASTER VIDYAVARDAK SAMITI G.N.K.HIGH SCHOOL SATTI AT: SATTI, TQ. ATHANI DIST. BELAGAVI – 591 240. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 TO R5; SRI PRASAD R. SIDHANTI, ADVOCATE FOR R6 AND R7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 22-04-2025 IN NO. EP 214 SEW 2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-P ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION; TO ISSUE IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 7 TO APPOINT THE PETITIONER OR HER SON TO THE APPROPRIATE POSTS ON COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14123 WP No. 106220 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an endorsement dated 22-04-2025, issued by the 2nd respondent by which the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds is said to have been turned down. 2. Heard Smt. Sanjana S.Mudhol, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Kirtilata R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri Prasad R.Sidhanti, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6 and 7. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: - The petitioner is the wife of one Shridhar Kamble, who was working as an Assistant Teacher in Hindi subject, a permanent employee in the 7th respondent-Management, an aided Institution. The husband of the petitioner died in harness while serving as an Assistant Teacher, on 07-04-2012. On 01-02-2013 before completion of one year from the date of the death of her husband, the petitioner submits an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14123 WP No. 106220 of 2025 application of the petitioner was forwarded to the competent authority for consideration. No consideration happens immediately. The petitioner then had to approach this Court in Writ Petition No.101490/2021, seeking a direction to consider the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. This comes to be disposed of on 29-09-2021 with a direction to consider the representation/application of the petitioner. No order was passed and therefore, the petitioner had to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. After issuance of notice and during the pendency of the contempt, the claim of the petitioner comes to be rejected by issuance of the impugned endorsement, pursuant to which, the contempt comes to be closed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said rejection of her claim. It is, therefore, the present petition is preferred. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the State has now declined to accept the claim of the petitioner on the score that the claim with regard to appointment on compassionate grounds has undergone a change and, therefore, the claim could not be accepted. The - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14123 WP No. 106220 of 2025 learned counsel submits that it is settled principle of law that at the time of death of the employee what was the Scheme prevalent only must be considered and not any Scheme that comes about at a later date. The learned counsel seeks to place reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. ASHISH AWASTHI reported in (2022) 2 SCC 157 and a judgment of the division bench of this Court in STATE OF KARNATAKA v. MAHABOOB PATEL, in W.P.No.202187 of 2023, decided on 25th July, 2025. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6 and 7 submits that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a right. It is the discretion of the Management to render appointment or otherwise, owing to certain facts and circumstances. The petitioner’s case could not be considered owing to the change in the Scheme. Therefore, no fault can be found with the claim of the petitioner being rejected. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14123 WP No. 106220 of 2025 7. The issue in the lis is, whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds or otherwise. 8. The husband of the petitioner was an Assistant Teacher working in the 7th respondent/Institution, a grant in- aid Institution. He dies in harness in the year 2012. On the death of the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner submits an application immediately seeking appointment on compassionate grounds on 01-02-2013. The application is as follows: “EAzÀ , ²æêÀÄw eÉÆåÃw ²æÃzsÀgÀ PÁA§¼É vÁ:CxÀtÂ, f:¨É¼ÀUÁ« ¢£ÁAPÀ: 01 02 2023 UÉ, ªÀÄÄSÁåzsÁå¥ÀPÀgÀÄ «zÁåªÀzsÀðPÀ ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ f.J£ï.PÉ.¥ËæqÀ±Á¯É ¸ÀwÛ vÁ:CxÀtÂ, f:¨É¼ÀUÁ« ªÀĺÀ¤ÃAiÀÄgÉÃ, «µÀAiÀÄ: C£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ²æêÀÄw eÉÆåÃw ²æÃzsÀgÀ PÁA§¼É EªÀjUÉ UÀÄæ¥ï r ºÀÄzÉÝ ¤ÃqÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ. G¯ÉèÃR: 1) ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£É ¸ÀASÉå : r.¦.J.Dgï: 100 : J¸ï.¹.J : 95 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 12-9-1996. 2) ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£É ¸ÀASÉå : r.¦.J.Dgï :11 J¸ï.¹.J : 97 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 31-3-1999 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14123 WP No. 106220 of 2025 3) ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£É ¸ÀASÉå : r.¦.J.Dgï :19 J¸ï.¹.J : 99 ¢£ÁAPÀ : 24-11-2000. ªÉÄïÁÌt¹zÀ «µÀAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ G¯ÉèÃRzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ vÀªÀÄä°è «£ÀAw¸ÀĪÀzÉãÉAzÀgÉ, ²æà ²æÃzsÀgÀ AiÀĪÀÄ£À¥Áà PÁA§¼É, ¸ÀºÀ²PÀëPÀgÀÄ (»A¢) «zÁåªÀzsÀðPÀ ¸À«ÄÃwAiÀÄ f.J£ï.PÉ. ¥ËæqsÀ±Á¯É ¸ÀwÛ vÁ।। CxÀtÂ, f:¨É¼ÀUÁ« E°è C£ÀÄzÁ¤vÀ ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸À°è¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÁUÀ¯É ¢£ÁAPÀ : 07-04-2012 gÀ0zÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖgÀĪÀgÀÄ. ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀlÖ £ËPÀgÀ£À d£Àä ¢£ÁAPÀ : 01-06-1968 EgÀĪÀzÀÄ. EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÉêÉUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ : 17-11-2000 EgÀĪÀzÀÄ. EªÀgÀ ¥ÀwßAiÀiÁzÀ ²æêÀÄw eÉÆåÃw ²æÃzsÀgÀ PÁA§¼É EªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀwAiÀÄ ªÀÄgÀtzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ vÀªÀÄUÉ C£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É UÀÄæ¥ï r. ºÀÄzÉÝ ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ J®è CqÀPÀUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀgÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV C¨sÀåyðAiÀÄÄ ¤UÀ¢vÀ ªÀAiÉÆëÄwAiÀÄ°è EgÀĪÀgÀÄ. ºÁUÀÆ F ªÉÆzÀ®Ä EªÀgÀ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåjUÉ C£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É £ËPÀj ¹QÌgÀĪÀ¢®è. ºÁUÀÆ F ªÉÆzÀ®Ä F PÀÄlÄA§zÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåjUÉ C£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ £ËPÀj ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ zsÀÈrÃPÀgÀt ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£É eÉÆvÉUÉ ¸À°è¸À¯ÁVzÉ. CqÀPÀUÀ¼ÀÄ: 1) ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ 5 ¥Àæw 2) ªÀÄÆ® ¸ÉêÁ ¥ÀŸÀÛPÀ -1 3) ¸ÉêÁ ¥ÀŸÀÛPÀ gÉhÄgÁPÀì ¥Àæw - 3 vÀªÀÄä £ÀA§ÄUÉAiÀÄ ²æêÀÄw eÉÆåÃw ²æÃzsÀgÀ PÁA§¼É.” (Emphasis added) Therefore, there is no delay in the petitioner submitting her application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. This is forwarded to the competent authority. It remains in cold storage for years together. The petitioner, a widow does not know what to do. Therefore, she approached - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14123 WP No. 106220 of 2025 this Court in Writ Petition No.101490/2021, which comes to be disposed of on 29.09.2021, by the following order: “2. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband late Sri. Shridhar Kamble was working as an Assistant Teacher with respondent Nos.5 & 6 and he died on 07.04.2012 while he was in service. After the death of her husband, the petitioner had submitted an application on 01.02.2013 along with all relevant documents seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The said application was forwarded by the management to the Block Education Officer who, in turn, has there afterwards forwarded the same to the respondent No.3-Deputy Director of Public Instructions on 31.05.2014 (Annexure- C). There afterwards, there has been no progress in the matter and respondent No.3 has failed to take further action pursuant to the recommendation made by the Block Education Officer and it is under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ petition seeking for necessary direction to the competent authority to take action on the application wherein she has made a request for appointment on compassionate grounds. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the application seeking compassionate appointment was filed in time and considering the same, the Block Education Officer had forwarded the papers to the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, the Deputy Director has not taken any action thereafter and has not forwarded the papers to respondent No.2 who is the competent authority to consider the representation made by the petitioner. He submits that the delay in considering the petitioner's case for appointment on compassionate grounds has been causing serious hardship to her as well as her family members and the very purpose of making an application for compassionate appointment is lost. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that the representation made by the petitioner at Annexure-B shall be considered in accordance with law and appropriate orders will be passed if some time is granted to the concerned authorities. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14123 WP No. 106220 of 2025 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the submissions made on behalf of both the parties, I am of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of by issuing necessary directions to the competent authorities to consider the representation, dated 01.02.2013, filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-B, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is partly allowed. ii) Respondent Nos.2 & 3 are directed to consider the representation dated 01.02.2013 submitted by the petitioner, vide Annexure-B, in the background of the recommendation made by respondent No.4-Block Education Officer, for the purpose of appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible but not later than a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.” (Emphasis supplied) The order was not complied with in terms of the afore- quoted order. Therefore, the petitioner had to invoke the contempt jurisdiction in C.C.C.No.100046/2025. During its pendency, the impugned order is passed on 22-04-2025. The order reads as follows: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14123 WP No. 106220 of 2025 “PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ ¸ÀASÉå :E¦ 214 J¸ïEqÀ§Æèöå 2022 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ ¸ÀaªÁ®AiÀÄ §ºÀĪÀĺÀrUÀ¼À PÀlÖqÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ :22.04.2025 »A§gÀºÀ «µÀAiÀÄ: ²æêÀÄw eÉÆåÃw ²æÃzsÀgÀ PÁA§¼É EªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è zÁR°¹gÀĪÀ jmï Cfð ¸ÀASÉå: 101490/2021 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 29.09.2021gÀ DzÉñÀzÀ §UÉÎ. G¯ÉèÃR: 1. ²æêÀÄw eÉÆåÃw ²æÃzsÀgÀ PÁA§¼À, ²gÀUÀÄ¥Éà, CxÀt vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, ¨É¼ÀUÁ« f¯Éè EªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÄSÉÆåÃ¥ÁzÀåAiÀÄgÀÄ, «zÁåªÀzsÀðPÀ ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ f.J£ï.PÉ ¥ËæqsÀ ±Á¯É, ¸ÀwÛ, CxÀt vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, ¨É¼ÀUÁ« f¯Éè EªÀjUÉ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:01.02.2013 gÀ Cfð 2. C¥ÀgÀ DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, ±Á¯Á ²PÀët E¯ÁSÉ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ EªÀgÀ ¸ÀASÉå:f3/±Á²C/eÉÆåòæÃPÁ/C£ÉÃC/110/2021-22 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 21.03.2022, 09.01.2024, 16.02.2024 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 28.03.2025. 3. ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£É ¸ÀASÉå:Er 8 J¸ïE¦2015, ¢£ÁAPÀ::26.09.2017. 4. ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå : E¦ 17 J¸ïE¦ 2022 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 29.03.2025. 5. ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ¤AzÀ£Á zÁªÉ ¸ÀASÉå : 100046/2025. *** ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, ²æà ²æÃzsÀgÀ AiÀĪÀÄ£À¥Àà PÁA§¼É, ¸ÀºÀ ²PÀëPÀgÀÄ, f.J£ï.PÉ ¥ËæqsÀ±Á¯É, ¸ÀwÛ , CxÀt vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, EªÀgÀ ¥ÀwßAiÀĪÀgÀÄ C£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É UÀÆæ¥ï-r ªÀÈAzÀzÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀî®Ä ¤zÉÃð±À£À ¤ÃqÀĪÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ ¦ÃoÀzÀ°è jmï Cfð ¸ÀASÉå:101490/2021£ÀÄß zÁR°¹zÀÄÝ. F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ:29.09.2021 gÀAzÀÄ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ DzÉñÀ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj DzÉñÀzÀ GzÀãvÀ ¨sÁUÀ F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ. i) The writ petition is partly allowed. ii) Respondent No.2 & 3 are directed to consider the representation dated 01.02.2013 submitted by the petitioner, vide annexure-B, in the background of the recommendation made by respondent No.4-Block Education officer, for the purpose of appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14123 WP No. 106220 of 2025 expeditiously as possible but not later than a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. ²æêÀÄw eÉÆåÃw ²æÃzsÀgÀ PÁA§¼É, ²gÀUÀĦà, CxÀt vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, ¨É¼ÀUÁ« f¯Éè EªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÄSÉÆåÃ¥ÁzÀåAiÀÄgÀÄ, «zÁåªÀzsÀðPÀ ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ eÉ.J£ï.PÉ ¥ËæqsÀ ±Á¯É, ¸ÀwÛ, CxÀt vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, ¨É¼ÀUÁ« f¯Éè EªÀjUÉ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ G¯ÉèÃR (1)gÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:01.02.2013gÀ CfðAiÀÄ°è EªÀgÀ ¥ÀwAiÀĪÀgÁzÀ ²æà ²æÃzsÀgÀ AiÀĪÀÄ£À¥Àà PÁA¨Éî, ¸ÀºÀ²PÀëPÀgÀÄ (»A¢), «zÁåªÀxÀðPÀ ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ fJ£ÉÌ ¥ËæqsÀ±Á¯É, ¸ÀwÛ C£ÀÄzÁ¤vÀ ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸À°è¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÁUÀ¯Éà ¢£ÁAPÀ:07.04.2012gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄgÀt ºÉÆA¢zÀÄÝ C£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É UÀÆæ¥ï-r ºÀÄzÉÝ ¤ÃqÀĪÀAvÉ Cfð ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. G¯ÉèÃR(2)gÀ C¥ÀgÀ DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, ±Á¯Á ²PÀët E¯ÁSÉ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ EªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå:f3/±Á²C/eÉÆåòæÃPÁ/C£ÉÃC/110/2021-22, ¢£ÁAPÀ::21.03.2022, 09.01.2024, 16.02.2024 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 28.03.2025 ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À°è G¥À¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ(DqÀ½vÀ), ±Á¯Á ²PÀët E¯ÁSÉ, ¨É¼ÀUÁ« f¯Éè EªÀgÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¹ SÁ¸ÀV C£ÀÄzÁ¤vÀ ¥ËæqsÀ±Á¯ÉUÀ¼À°è UÀÆæ¥ï-r ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ C£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀĪÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁwUÉ E¯ÁSÁ C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ¤ÃqÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ªÀiÁUÀðzÀ±Àð£À PÉÆÃjgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. gÁdå ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¤ÃwAiÀÄAvÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ J¯Áè E¯ÁSÉUÀ¼À°è£À UÀÆæ¥ï-r ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀUÀÄwÛUÉ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É £ÉëĸÀ¯ÁUÀÄwÛzÉ. EzÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¤Ãw ¤tðAiÀÄzÀ «µÀAiÀĪÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F ¤ÃwAiÀÄÄ gÁdå ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀiÁ£ÀÄzÁ£ÀPÉÌ M¼À¥ÀlÖ J¯Áè ²PÀët ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ½UÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ C£ÀéAiÀĪÁUÀvÀPÀÌzÁÝVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ, G¯ÉèÃR(3)gÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£É ¸ÀASÉå: Er 08 Jಇ¦ 2015, ¢£ÁAPÀ:26.09.2017gÀ°è ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀĪÀ The Karnataka Educational Institutions (Recruitment and terms and condition of service of employees in Private Aided Primary and Secondary Education Institution) (Amendment) Rules, 2017 gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ SÁ¸ÀV C£ÀÄzÁ¤vÀ ¥ËæqsÀ±Á¯ÉUÀ¼À ¹§âA¢ ªÀiÁzÀjAiÀÄ£ÀßAiÀÄ UÀÆæ¥ï r ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÁAiÀiÁ£ÀÄzÁ£ÀPÉÌ M¼À¥Àr¸À®Ä CªÀPÁ±À«gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ²PÀët C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ, 1983gÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt 49gÀ°è F PɼÀPÀAqÀ G¥À§AzsÀ«zÉ:- “49. Government to set apart sum for giving grant-in-aid to certain recognised institution. (1) The State Government shall within the limits of its economic capacity, set apart a sum of money annually for being given as grant-in aid (hereinafter in this Act referred to as grant) to local authority - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14123 WP No. 106220 of 2025 institutions and private institutions in the State recognised for this purpose in accordance with rules made in this behalf ಸಾಾನು ಾನ ಪೆಯುವದು ಒಬನ ಹಕು ಎಂದು ಪಾಸಲು ಬರುವಲ , ಈ ತತ#ವನು$ %ಾನ& ಕ'ಾ(ಟಕ ಉಚ, 'ಾ&ಾಲಯವ -. ಅ0( ಸಂ1ೆ&:55648 & 58296/2019, Rajeshwari Vidhya Samsthe v/s GoK ಪಕರಣದ3 'ಾಂಕ:25.04.2017ರಂದು 4ೕ6ರುವ ೕ7(ನ3 ಎ8 96ರುತ8 ೆ. %ಾನ& ಸ:ೕ(ಚ, 'ಾ&ಾಲಯವ ;ೇಂದ ಸ;ಾ(ರ <ರುದ= >ೇ?ಾ@ಾA ಪರಶು@ಾA0 ಮತು8 ಇತರರು ಪಕರಣದ3 'ಾಂಕ:03.05.1991ರಂದು 4ೕ6ರುವ "No Court or the Tribunal could compel the Government to change its policy involving expenditure…. " ಎಂದು ಆ ೇEFರುತ8 ೆ. %ಾನ& ಸ:ೕ(ಚ, 'ಾ&ಾಲಯವ F<G ಅ7ೕG ಸಂ1ೆ&:865/2021 ಉತ8ರ ಪ ೇಶ <ರುದ= ಅಭI ನಂದJ ಇಂಟK ;ಾLೇಜು ಪಕರಣದ3 'ಾಂಕ:27.09.2021ರಂದು 4ೕ6ರುವ ೕ7(ನ3 ಸಾಾನು ಾನವನು$ ಪೆಯುವದು ಮೂಲಭೂತ ಹಕಲ Oೆಂದು ೕಪ( 4ೕ6ದುP, ೕ7(ನ ಉದQತ Rಾಗ ಈ ;ೆಳUೆ ಉದP-F ೆ:- "RIGHT TO AID: - 29. We will first take up the right of institutions qua the aid. A decision to grant aid is by way of policy. While doing so, the government is not only concerned with the interest of the institutions but the ability to undertake such an exercise. There are factors which the government is expected to consider before taking such a decision. Financial constraints and deficiencies are the factors which are considered relevant in taking any decision qua aid, including both the decision to grant aid and the manner of disbursement of an aid. 30. Once we hold that right to get an aid is not a fundamental right, the challenge to a decision made in implementing it, shall only be on restricted grounds. Therefore, even in a case where a policy decision is made to withdraw the aid, an institution cannot question it as a matter of right. Maybe, such a challenge would still be available to an institution, when a grant is given to one institution as against the other institution which is similarly placed. Therefore, with the grant of an aid, the conditions come. If an institution does not want to accept and comply with the conditions accompanying such aid, it is well open to it to decline the grant and move in its own way. On the contrary, an institution can never be allowed to say that the grant of aid should be on its own terms." ಅನು ಾ4ತ ೌಢXಾLೆಗಳ3 ಅನುಕಂಪದ ಆYಾರದ ZೕLೆ ಗೂ[-6 ಹು ೆPಗಳನು$ ಸಾಾನು ಾನ;ೆ ಒಳಪ6ಸುವ ;ೋ\ಕೃತ ಪ^ಾ8ವ'ೆಯನು$ ಪ-Eೕ3F, "ಸ;ಾ(ರದ3 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14123 WP No. 106220 of 2025 ಾ3ಸLಾಗು8ರುವ 4ೕ-4ಯಮಗಳ_ 1ಾಸ` ಅನು ಾ4ತ Eaಣ ಸಂ^ೆbಗcಗೂ ಅನ#dಸುತ8Oೆ. ಸ;ಾ(ರದ ಎLಾ ಇLಾ1ೆ/XಾLಾ-;ಾLೇಜುಗಳ3 ಗೂ[-6 ಹು ೆPಗಳನು$ ೊರಗು8Uೆ ಆYಾರದ ZೕLೆ ಭ( %ಾ6;ೊಳeLಾಗು8ರುವ ;ಾರಣ 1ಾಸ` ಅನು ಾ4ತ Eaಣ ಸಂ^ೆbಗcUೆ ಪ>ೆ&ೕಕOಾ` ಈ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಾವ ೇ <'ಾd 4ೕಡುವದು ಸೂಕ8ವಲ " ಎಂದು ಉLೆ ೕಖ(4)ರ ಸ;ಾ(ರದ ಪತದ3 ಮೂರು ಆಯು;ಾ8ಲಯಗcUೆ cಸLಾ` ೆ. ZೕLೆ <ವ-Fರುವ Oಾಸ8Oಾಂಶಗಳ 9'ೆ$Lೆಯ3 ಸ;ಾ(ರದ 4ೕ 4ಣ(ಯದಂ>ೆ ಉLೆ ೕಖ (3)ರ 1ಾಸ` ಅನು ಾ4ತ ೌಢXಾLೆಗಳ Fಬಂ %ಾದ-Uೆ %ಾ6ರುವ ದುPಪ6ಯನ$ಯ ೌಢXಾLೆಗಳ ಅನು ಾ4ತ ೌಢXಾLೆಗಳ ಗೂ[-6 ಹು ೆPಗಳನು$ ;ೇವಲ ೊರಗು8Uೆ ಮೂಲಕ %ಾತOೇ ತುಂಬiೇ;ಾ`ದುP, ಸಾಾನು ಾನ;ೆ ಒಳಪ6ಸಲು ಅವ;ಾಶ<ಲ ರುವ ;ಾರಣ, ವಂಗತ Eೕಧರ ಯಮನಪj ;ಾಂಬkೆ, ಸಹ Eaಕರು, 0.ಎJ.;ೆ ೌಢXಾLೆ ಸ8, ಅಥm >ಾಲೂ ಕು, ಇವರ ಪ$ Eೕಮ ?ೊ&ೕ Eೕಧರ ;ಾಂಬkೆ, ಇವರನು$ ಅನುಕಂಪದ ಆYಾರದ ZೕLೆ 'ೇಮ;ಾ %ಾ6;ೊಂ6ರುವ ಗೂ[-6 ಹು ೆPಯನು$ ಸಾಾನು ಾನ;ೆ ಒಳಪ6ಸಲು ಅವ;ಾಶ<ರುವಲ . ಸ»/- 22/4/25 (ಪ;ಾಶ. ಎ) ಸ;ಾ(ರದ ಅoೕನ ;ಾಯ(ದE( (ೌಢ) XಾLಾ Eaಣ ಮತು8 ^ಾaರ>ಾ ಇLಾ1ೆ.” (Emphasis added) The reason for rejection of the claim of the petitioner is as noted hereinabove is that, a compassionate appointment to a Group – D post cannot be granted on the score that the notification issued by the State on 26.09.2017. 9. The reason for rejection of the claim of the petitioner is, the Rules have undergone an amendment called the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Recruitment and terms and - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14123 WP No. 106220 of 2025 condition of service of employees in Private Aided Primary and Secondary Education Institution) (Amendment) Rules, 2017. The reason is that, compassionate appointment to Group-D cannot be granted as aid cannot be given to a Group-D post. Both these observations in the impugned endorsement appear to have been rendered only to get over the sword of contempt that was pending at that point in time. The reason so rendered is neither cogent nor coherent. An Assistant Teacher is not a Group-D employee and to Group-D post, grant will not be given as a policy that has emerged in terms of the amendment to the Rules in the year 2017. At the time when the application was submitted immediately after the death of the husband of the petitioner, the Scheme was not the one that denied aid to a Group-D employee. 10. It is settled principle of law that an application for compassionate appointment will have to be considered in terms of a Policy that prevailed on the date of the death of the employee. The Apex Court in the case of ASHISH AWASTHI (supra) has held as follows: “4. The deceased employee died on 08-10-2015. At the time of death, he was working as a work-charged employee, who was paid the salary from the contingency - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14123 WP No. 106220 of 2025 fund. As per the policy/circular prevalent at the time of the death of the deceased employee i.e. Policy/Circular No. C-3-12/2013/1-3 dated 29-9-2014 in case of death of the employee working on work charge, his dependants/heirs were not entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground and were entitled to Rs 2 lakhs as compensatory amount. Subsequently, the policy came to be amended vide Circular dated 31-8-2016, under which even in the case of death of the work-charged employee, his heirs/dependants will be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. Relying upon the subsequent Circular/Policy dated 31-8-2016, the Division Bench of the High Court has directed [Ashish Awasthi v. State of M.P., 2018 SCC OnLine MP 1824] the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground. 5. As per the settled proposition of law laid down by this Court for appointment on compassionate ground, the policy prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee only is required to be considered and not the subsequent policy. 6. In Indian Bank v. Promila [Indian Bank v. Promila, (2020) 2 SCC 729: (2020) 1 SCC (L&S) 312], it is observed and held that claim for compassionate appointment must be decided only on the basis of relevant scheme prevalent on date of demise of the employee and subsequent scheme cannot be looked into. Similar view has been taken by this Court in State of M.P. v. Amit Shrivas [State of M.P. v. Amit Shrivas, (2020) 10 SCC 496: (2021) 1 SCC (L&S) 68]. It is required to be noted that in Amit Shrivas [State of M.P. v. Amit Shrivas, (2020) 10 SCC 496: (2021) 1 SCC (L&S) 68] the very scheme applicable in the present case was under consideration and it was held that the scheme prevalent on the date of death of the deceased employee is only to be considered. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order [Ashish Awasthi v. State of M.P., 2018 SCC OnLine MP 1824] passed by the Division Bench is - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14123 WP No. 106220 of 2025 unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. The submission on behalf of the respondent that after the impugned judgment and order [Ashish Awasthi v. State of M.P., 2018 SCC OnLine MP 1824] passed by the High Court, the respondent has been appointed and therefore his appointment may not be disturbed, deserves rejection. Once the judgment and order [Ashish Awasthi v. State of M.P., 2018 SCC OnLine MP 1824] passed by the Division Bench under which the respondent is appointed is quashed and set aside, necessary consequences shall follow and the appointment of the respondent, which was pursuant to the impugned judgment and order [Ashish Awasthi v. State of M.P., 2018 SCC OnLine MP 1824] passed by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be protected. 8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal succeeds, the impugned judgment and order [Ashish Awasthi v. State of M.P., 2018 SCC OnLine MP 1824] passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Jabalpur in WA No. 1559 of 2018 is hereby quashed and set aside by observing that the respondent shall not be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of the subsequent Circular/Policy dated 31-8-2016. 9. It is reported that the amount of Rs 2 lakhs which was paid to the respondent as compensatory amount pursuant to the policy/scheme of 2014 has been given back by the respondent. If that be so, the same may be paid to the respondent. Civil Appeal No. 6904 of 2021 10. For the reasons stated in the judgment and order [Ashish Awasthi v. State of M.P., 2018 SCC OnLine MP 1824] in Civil Appeal No. 6903 of 2021, the impugned judgment and order [Baalendu - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14123 WP No. 106220 of 2025 Yadav v. State of M.P., 2019 SCC OnLine MP 7083] passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal No. 2003 of 2019 also deserves to be quashed and set aside as in the present case also, the Division Bench of the High Court has directed the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground applying the subsequent scheme/circular and though under the scheme/circular prevalent on the date of death of the deceased employee, who at the relevant time was serving on work charge establishment, also deserves to be quashed and set aside and consequently, the present appeal is also allowed.” (Emphasis supplied) In the light of the afore-quoted judgment of the Apex Court, the Scheme that prevailed at the time of death of the employee must be taken into consideration and if it is taken into consideration, the part of denial of the claim of the petitioner, is in error. 11. The petitioner immediately has submitted her application. She is made to roam from pillar to post and the application is kept in cold storage for 8 long years. It is only when a mandamus is issued and contempt is initiated, the application is processed. A division bench of this Court, while considering an identical issue that, an application seeking - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14123 WP No. 106220 of 2025 compassionate appointment by the applicant in the case of MAHABOOB PATEL (supra), has held as follows: “…. …. …. 10. In the instant case, the father of the applicant by name Raja Patel Banda, who was working as a Peon in the office of the Tahasildar, Jewargi died in harness on 16.12.2014. Following his death, the widow, mother of the applicant submitted an application on 02.01.2015 seeking pension, retirement benefits and sought compassionate appointment not for herself, but requesting that one of her four eligible sons be considered for compassionate appointment. The authorities failed to act on or respond to her application. The second son, elder brother of the applicant filed an application on 05.10.2015. The said application was rejected on the ground that he has crossed his age limit. It is thereafter, the applicant, second son filed an application on 23.02.2017 requesting to appoint him on compassionate ground by considering the first application filed by his mother on 02.01.2015, which was acknowledged by the Tahasildar. The application was rejected on the ground that it was time barred under Rule 5 of the Rules, 1996 which requires applications to be filed within one year of the death of the Government Servant. The applicant aggrieved by the said endorsement, challenged the same before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Kalaburagi Bench (‘Tribunal’, for short). 11. The Tribunal allowed the claim, holding that the widow’s 2015 application constituted a valid initial cause of action and the application filed by the applicant has to be construed to be a continuation of the initial claim made by the mother. The State aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal has filed this writ petition contending that Rule 5 of the Rules, 1996 is mandatory and that each dependent are required to file their own application within the stipulated time and delay beyond one year renders the application time barred. 12. It is contended that the compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and it must be governed strictly in accordance with the rules and the - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14123 WP No. 106220 of 2025 Tribunal’s order undermines the purpose of the time limit and opens the door to indefinite claims. 13. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent/applicant that the mother of the applicant had filed application in the year 2015, within one year period expressing her clear intention that her son be considered for compassionate appointment. It is his contention that the widow was illiterate and unaware of the technical requirements and it was the duty upon the department to inform and guide her, especially as she has submitted the request in good faith and within time. The application filed by the mother clearly indicates that the family was in distress and the compassionate appointment was really meant to provide them immediate relief. It is contended that this has to be treated as an exceptional case and provide compassionate appointment to the applicant. 14. We are not in second thought about the settled proposition of law that the rules provided under the Compassionate Appointment Rules cannot be permitted to relax or extend the time as consistently held by the Apex Court that compassionate appointment is not a right and it must be governed strictly according to the scheme or the rules. Bearing in mind the proposition of law and Rule 5 of Rules, 1996, the facts in this case would differ as the widow who was dependant upon the Government Servant was an illiterate, she filed timely application indicating the family’s intent to seek compassionate appointment. The application was filed within one year time limit prescribed under Rule 5. In that application, she clearly expressed her inability to take up employment due to age and circumstances and nominated her sons as the suitable dependants for appointment. Though the application filed by the applicant was not in the format, the intent was unambiguous. The authorities had opportunity to consider and guide the family. The applications submitted by the widow ought to have been rejected or communicated to her. There was no intimation whatsoever sent to the widow of the deceased Government employee regarding the exercise of such an option. Had she been informed, she could have applied or rather asked her sons to make necessary application within time. When a dependant of a deceased Government Servant makes a timely application under a compassionate appointment scheme, even if - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14123 WP No. 106220 of 2025 informally or without prescribed format due to illiteracy, and where the authorities failed to respond, inform or guide the family, such inaction deprives the other eligible dependants of a fair opportunity to comply with the rules. Thus, the delay in the subsequent application should not be held against the dependant. 15. Under Rule 4 of the Rules, 1996 conditions of appointment states that the deceased Government Servant’s family should be in financial crisis or distress. The applicant must possess the minimum academic qualification required for the post, the appointment is limited to Group-C or Group-D, and must be against the vacancy earmarked for direct recruitment and if there is no vacancy is available in that department, alternate Government Departments may be considered. In the instant case, it is undisputed that the death of the Government employee in 2014 caused severe financial and emotional distress to the family. This is evident from the application made by the widow in 2015, stating her inability to take up the employment due to the age and requesting that one of her sons be considered. This demonstrates that the family met the essential condition of financial hardship, as required under Rule 4. 16. The Apex Court in the case of Debabrata Tiwari stated supra has observed that the majesty of death is that it is a great leveller for, it makes no distinction between the young and the old or the rich and the poor. Death being as a consequence of birth at some point of time is inevitable for every being. Thus, while death is certain, its timing is uncertain. Further, a deceased employee does not always leave behind valuable assets; he may at times leave behind poverty to be faced by the immediate members of his family. Therefore, what should be done to ensure that death of an individual does not mean economic death for his family? The State's obligation in this regard, confined to its employees who die in harness, has given rise to schemes and rules providing for compassionate appointment of an eligible member of his family as an instance of providing immediate succour to such a family. Support for such a provision has been derived from the provisions of - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14123 WP No. 106220 of 2025 Part IV of the Constitution of India i.e. Article 39 of the Directive Principles of State Policy. 17. Further, at para No.7.2 has laid down the following principles: “7.2. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles emerge: i. That a provision for compassionate appointment makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment to a post by following a particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions and must be resorted to only in order to achieve the stated objectives i.e. to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. ii. Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the public sector undertaking is to see that the dependants of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. iii. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. Compassionate employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over. iv. That compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years. v. In determining as to whether the family is in financial crisis, all relevant aspects must be borne in mind including the income of the family, its liabilities, the terminal benefits if any, received by the family, the age, dependency and marital status of its members, together with the income from any other source.” - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14123 WP No. 106220 of 2025 18. The Apex Court emphasized that the object underlining a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of the bread earner which has led the family penury and without means of any livelihood. The Apex Court observed that sine qua non for entertaining a claim for compassionate appointment is that the family of the deceased employee would be unable to make two ends meet without one of the dependants of the deceased employee been employed on compassionate appointment. The Apex Court emphasized that delay on part of the authorities of the State to decide claims for compassionate appointment would no doubt frustrate the very object of the scheme and the Government Officials are to act with a sense of utmost pro-activeness and immediacy. Further, emphasized that undue delay by applicants in seeking judicial relief can extinguish claims referring to Moon Mills Limited Vs. M.R. Mehar, President Industrial Court, Bombay and Others,(AIR 1967 SC 1450) (Moon Mills Limited) and observed that a prolonged delay could disentitle the grant of relief to a person. 19. In the latest decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ajitkumar stated supra reiterated the principles laid down in the Debabrata Tiwari stated supra emphasized that compassionate appointments are intended solely for families in dire financial distress following the untimely death of a bread winner and observed that “compassionate appointment are meant for families in hand-mouth situation, not for addressing mere decline in lifestyle standards due to the loss of income and crystallized the well settled 26 guiding principles as under: a) Appointment on compassionate ground, which is offered on humanitarian grounds, is an exception to the rule of equality in the matter of public employment [see General Manager, State Bank of India v. Anju Jain14]. b) Compassionate appointment cannot be made in the absence of rules or instructions [see Haryana State Electricity Board v. Krishna Devi15]. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14123 WP No. 106220 of 2025 c) Compassionate appointment is ordinarily offered in two contingencies carved out as exceptions to the general rule, viz. to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family either on account of death or of medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service [see V. Sivamurthy v. Union of India16]. d) The whole object of granting compassionate employment by an employer being intended to enable the family members of a deceased or an incapacitated employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis, appointments on compassionate ground should be made immediately to redeem the family in distress [see Sushma Gosain v. Union of India17]. e) Since rules relating to compassionate appointment permit a side-door entry, the same have to be given strict interpretation [see Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi18]. f) Compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right and the criteria laid down in the Rules must be satisfied by all aspirants [see SAIL v. Madhusudan Das19]. g) None can claim compassionate appointment by way of inheritance [see State of Chattisgarh v. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar20]. h) Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our constitutional scheme, and being an exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve [see Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India21]. i) None can claim compassionate appointment, on the occurrence of death/medical incapacitation of the concerned employee (the sole bread earner of the family), as if it were a vested right, and any appointment without considering the financial condition of the family of the deceased is legally impermissible [see Union of India v. Amrita Sinha22]. j) An application for compassionate appointment has to be made immediately upon death/incapacitation and in any case within a reasonable period thereof or else a presumption - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14123 WP No. 106220 of 2025 could be drawn that the family of the deceased/incapacitated employee is not in immediate need of financial assistance. Such appointment not being a vested right, the right to apply cannot be exercised at any time in future and it cannot be offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over [see Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Anil Badyakar23] k) The object of compassionate employment is not to give a member of a family of the deceased employee a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. Offering compassionate employment as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased and making compassionate appointments in posts above Class III and IV is legally impermissible [see Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana24]. l) Indigence of the dependents of the deceased employee is the first precondition to bring the case under the scheme of compassionate appointment. If the element of indigence and the need to provide immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution is taken away from compassionate appointment, it would turn out to be a reservation in favour of the dependents of the employee who died while in service which would directly be in conflict with the ideal of equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [see Union of India v. B. Kishore25]. m) The idea of compassionate appointment is not to provide for endless compassion [see I.G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi26]. n) Satisfaction that the family members have been facing financial distress and that an appointment on compassionate ground may assist them to tide over such distress is not enough; the dependent must fulfil the eligibility criteria for such appointment [see State of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari27]. o) There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the applicant becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions [see Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar28]. p) Grant of family pension or payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as substitute - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14123 WP No. 106220 of 2025 for providing employment assistance. Also, it is only in rare cases and that too if provided by the scheme for compassionate appointment and not otherwise, that a dependent who was a minor on the date of death/incapacitation, can be considered for appointment upon attaining majority [see Canara Bank (supra)]. q) An appointment on compassionate ground made many years after the death/incapacitation of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to the dependent of the deceased/incapacitated employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [see National Institute of Technology v. Niraj Kumar Singh29]. r) Dependents if gainfully employed cannot be considered [see Haryana Public Service Commission v. Harinder Singh30]. s) The retiral benefits received by the heirs of the deceased employee are to be taken into consideration to determine if the family of the deceased is left in penury. The court cannot dilute the criterion of penury to one of “not very well-to- do”. [see General Manager (D and PB) v. Kunti Tiwary31]. t) Financial condition of the family of the deceased employee, allegedly in distress or penury, has to be evaluated or else the object of the scheme would stand defeated inasmuch as in such an eventuality, any and every dependent of an employee dying-in-harness would claim employment as if public employment is heritable [see Union of India v. Shashank Goswami32, Union Bank of India v. M. T. Latheesh33, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation v. Nank Chand34 and Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja35]. u) The terminal benefits, investments, monthly family income including the family pension and income of family from other sources, viz. agricultural land were rightly taken into consideration by the authority to decide whether the family is living in penury. [see Somvir Singh (supra)]. - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14123 WP No. 106220 of 2025 v) The benefits received by widow of deceased employee under Family Benefit Scheme assuring monthly payment cannot stand in her way for compassionate appointment. Family Benefit Scheme cannot be equated with benefits of compassionate appointment. [see Balbir Kaur v. SAIL36]. w) The fixation of an income slab is, in fact, a measure which dilutes the element of arbitrariness. While, undoubtedly, the facts of each individual case have to be borne in mind in taking a decision, the fixation of an income slab subserves the purpose of bringing objectivity and uniformity in the process of decision making. [see State of H.P. v. Shashi Kumar37]. x) Courts cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration [see Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar38]. y) Courts cannot allow compassionate appointment dehors the statutory regulations/instructions. Hardship of the candidate does not entitle him to appointment dehors such regulations/instructions [see SBI v. Jaspal Kaur39]. z) An employer cannot be compelled to make an appointment on compassionate ground contrary to its policy [see Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Dharmendra Sharma40]. 20. The Apex Court in the case of Ajitkumar laid down guiding principles restricting compassionate appointments only to cases of acute financial distress. The facts in the present case must be viewed in the unique context of the socio–economic background of Group ’C’ and ‘D’ employees, which significantly differs from that of officers or supervisory staff. Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees generally earn modest salaries, often just enough for day to day survival. In Ajitkumar’s case stated supra, the deceased was Canara Bank Officer and the Apex Court observed that the family was not indigent and significant delay in applying. In both the cases of Debabrata Tiwari and Ajitkumar stated supra, Apex Court reinforced that compassionate appointment is not - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14123 WP No. 106220 of 2025 vested right but a concession governed strictly by policies. 21. In the instant case, the deceased was Group ‘D’ employee, the widow applied within time, the rejection of application as time barred would have been accepted in normal course but not in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case in light of the timely application submitted by the immediate dependant of the Government Servant. We do not find any error in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting any interference by this Court. The appellants are directed to pass orders on application of the petitioner dated 23.01.2017 and provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner within 08 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 22. Compassionate appointment matters being a welfare measure designed to provide immediate financial relief to bereaved families, the State bears a high duty of procedural fairness. When a timely application is made, especially by an illiterate or a widow, the authorities must act strictly, transparently and assistively. Failure to do so, can deny rightful dependants their opportunity. 23. In order to prevent recurrence of such situation and to bring clarity, transparency and procedural fairness into the compassionate appointment process, we issue the following directions: i) Every application for compassionate appointment whether in prescribed format or not must be acknowledged in writing by the authority within 30 days along with clear communication about: a) status of the application (incomplete or complete); b) any defects in format/documentation; c) the rights of other dependants to apply; d) The applicable limitation period; ii) In cases where the applicant is widow, illiterate or otherwise, concerned - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14123 WP No. 106220 of 2025 Departments must take pro-active steps to assist them in filing the application in proper format and guide them regarding the steps to be followed by the other dependants to apply; iii) All the applications must be decided within a maximum period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the application. If the application is found not maintainable, a reasoned order must be communicated to the applicant immediately. iv) A uniform Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and training of officials handling compassionate appointment should be made by the Government to ensure no procedural lapses. The State Government shall issue appropriate instructions to all the Heads of Departments to ensure that application for compassionate appointment are decided within the time frame stated supra. 23. With the above directions, we pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is hereby dismissed.” (Emphasis supplied) In the light of the aforesaid law as declared, the petition deserves to succeed. - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14123 WP No. 106220 of 2025 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R (i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds in terms of the Scheme that prevailed at the time of death of the husband of the petitioner, within an outer limit of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE nvj / CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45