- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42732-DB WP No. 31801 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO.31801 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SMT. H J BHAVYA SAHUKARA W/O SRI. UMESH. K. H., D/O LATE SRI. HSG JAYADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT KTJ NAGARA, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN, OPP. ANJENEYA TEMPLE, DAVANAGERE - 577 002. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. C.M NAGABUSHANA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ENVIRONMENT, ECOLOGY, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATIVE OF FOREST IN KARNATAKA, ARANYA BHAVANA, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE - 560 003. Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42732-DB WP No. 31801 of 2025 3. THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST SHIVAMOGGA CIRCLE, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201. 4. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST SAGARA DIVISION, SAGARA - 577 401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT NO.FEE 47 FNB 2024(E), DATED 15/10/2024 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-A9) AND SET ASIDE THE SAME AND ALSO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE THE APPOINTMENT ORDER UNDER COMPASSIONATE GROUND, WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS; AND B) CONSEQUENTLY, SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07/08/2025 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.721/2025, ANNEXURE-A; C) PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS OR ISSUE SUCH OTHER DIRECTIONS AS THIS HON’BLE TRIBUNAL DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42732-DB WP No. 31801 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is by the unsuccessful applicant calling in question Order dated 07.08.2025 in Application No.721 of 2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’, for short), declining to grant the relief sought for in the application. 2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. A brief outline of facts leading to filing of the present petition are as under:- Father of applicant by name Sri.H.S.G.Jayadevappa was working as a Forest Guard with respondents. He died while in service on 28.08.2001, survived by his wife and three daughters, including the applicant - Bhavya - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42732-DB WP No. 31801 of 2025 Sahukar, Shruthi Sahukar and Namratha Sahukar, aged 14, 12 and 6 years respectively. The entire family’s financial status was shattered due to untimely death of only bread winner of the family putting them in unbearable hardship. 4. Within a year from the date of death, mother of the applicant by name Smt.K.R.Madhura filed an application on 26.08.2002 seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The respondent No.4 on 12.11.2002 had issued an endorsement (Annexure – A1) contending that as per Rule 6 of the Karnataka General Recruitment Rules, 1977, wife of the deceased was aged 44 years as on the date of application, as such not eligible to seek an appointment on compassionate grounds under the Rule. However, he has directed the wife of the deceased to make an application seeking for appointment on compassionate ground immediately after any one of the children attaining age of majority. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42732-DB WP No. 31801 of 2025 5. Mother of applicant on 22.10.2005 made an application on behalf of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds stating that the applicant had attained age of majority on 01.10.2005 along with proper particulars. 6. On 25.11.2005, the then respondent No.4 forwarded the application to the then Conservator of Forests, Shivamogga Circle, Shivamogga, stating that the earlier endorsement issued in the year 2002 was against the prevailing Rules, admitting the age limit upto 46 years for a person seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The wife of the deceased employee was 44 years as on the date of application. As such, the endorsement issued was misconceived. The 4th respondent observed that since the applicant was 14 years as on the date of death of the father, in terms of Rules, she is not entitled, but, the earlier application submitted by the wife of the deceased was rejected inadvertently without properly ascertaining - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42732-DB WP No. 31801 of 2025 the age limit and without observing the amended Rules, but based on earlier Rules prior to amendment, with a direction to the wife to submit application immediately after any one of the children attaining the age of majority, there is no fault attributable to the family and the mistake is committed by the then Officer. While recommending the application, the respondent No.4 stated that the case of the applicant be considered as a special case in the particular facts and circumstances in order to provide proper justice to the family. 7. Upon receipt of the recommendation, the respondent No.3 forwarded the same with further recommendation stating that, the earlier application by the wife was within time. However, the same was rejected inadvertently without properly considering the provisions prevailing at that point of time, which is not attributable to the family of the deceased and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42732-DB WP No. 31801 of 2025 consider the case as a special case, and the benefit may be extended to the respondent No.2. 8. Upon receipt of the recommendation, the respondent No.2 forwarded the same to the respondent No.1 on 09.08.2006. The Respondent No.2 giving particulars of date, recommended the case of the applicant to respondent No.1 to consider the same as a special case on humanitarian ground so also referred the note of the then Hon’ble Minister of Forest, Ecology & Environment. 9. As the case of the applicant was not considered, the mother of the applicant submitted an application to the then Hon'ble Chief Minister in ‘Janata Darshan’. 10. The Office of the Hon’ble Chief Minister issued a note to the concerned Department to consider the case as a special case for appointment - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42732-DB WP No. 31801 of 2025 on compassionate grounds and if required, to take the opinion from the Legal Department. 11. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.1 put up the case file before the Hon'ble Minister for Forest, Ecology and Environment submitting that in terms of Rules, there is no provision for admitting the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds, as the application was not filed within one year from the date of death of the servant. The Minister for Forest Department after perusing the entire file come to the conclusion that the rejection of earlier application which was filed in time was inadvertent and attributable to the appointing authority and not to the family of the deceased. This has resulted is injustice to the family which is in financial distress. Accordingly, directed to consider the case as special case and to place the matter before the Cabinet, if required for appropriate action. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42732-DB WP No. 31801 of 2025 12. However, before any action could be taken in that regard, the respondent No.1 issued an endorsement dated 15.10.2024 stating that in view of Rule 5 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 (‘Rules, 1996’, for short), the applicant was minor and had not attained age of majority within one year from the date of death of her father, as such, her application cannot be considered. Aggrieved by the endorsement (Annexure - A9), the applicant approached the Tribunal seeking to quash the endorsement, with further direction to the respondent authorities to issue appointment order on compassionate grounds with all consequential benefits. 13. The respondent - State accepting the notice, filed reply statement admitting the fact that her father died on 28.08.2001 and the mother filed an application within time, but was rejected stating that she was not eligible as she was 44 years as on - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42732-DB WP No. 31801 of 2025 the date of application. Further contending that the applicant has to prove the extension of age limit upto 46 years to seek for appointment on compassionate ground. Further stated that no appeal was filed against the order of rejecting application of the mother of the applicant. There is an inordinate delay of 23 years in filing the application and no proper explanation offered for condonation of delay. It is further contented that as per Rule 5 of the Rules, 1996, an application be made for appointment on compassionate ground within one year from the date of death of the Government servant and in case of minor, he/she must have attained the age of 18 years within one year from the date of death of the Government servant and the application be made within one year thereafter. Further stated that there is no infirmity in passing impugned endorsement and same is in accordance with Rules. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42732-DB WP No. 31801 of 2025 14. The State Government has relied on the judgment in the case of Smt.Sundaramma and another vs. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka1, to contend that there is no scope for introducing the concept of condonation of delay in the matter of appointment on compassionate ground. The Rules cannot be relaxed for providing appointment on compassionate ground in an application made belatedly, in case on hand, the present application filed after 23 years. As the applicant was silent for 23 years and not taken any action, the negligence is attributable to the family and cannot be condoned. So far as the direction of the Hon'ble Chief Minister is concerned, it is emphasized that it was just an instruction to the respondent authority to consider the applicant's application in accordance with Rules and not a clear direction to the respondent authority to issue 1 2007 (4) Karnataka Law Journal 110 (DB) - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42732-DB WP No. 31801 of 2025 appointment order to the applicant. Accordingly, sought to reject the writ petition. 15. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties, considering the facts of the case, observed that so far as the rejection of application of wife of the deceased Government employee was concerned, it was due to mistake on the part of the respondent authorities. But, the mother of the applicant has not challenged the legality and correctness of the said endorsement and the same has attained finality. So far as the application of the applicant is concerned, the Tribunal opined that, the same is against the requirements of Rule 5 of Rules, 1996, viz: a) The application must be made within one year from the date of death of the Government employee. b) In case of minor, should attain the age of majority within one year from the date of death of the Government employee. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42732-DB WP No. 31801 of 2025 c) And an application must be made within one year thereafter. 16. The Tribunal has further observed that, in the case on hand, applicant was born on 01.10.1987, as on the date of death of her father, she was 14 years and she has attained the age of majority only in the year 2005 i.e., on 01.10.2005. As such, the proviso to Rule 5 of Rules, 1996 operates against her. Accordingly, held that the respondent authority cannot consider the application of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground and the endorsement issued is in accordance with law. 17. The Tribunal further held that the Government employee expired in the year 2001 and as on the date of order i.e. 2025, more than 24 years lapsed. Firstly, there is no provision of limitation made applicable to Rules, 1996 to condone the delay in making the application for appointment on compassionate ground. Secondly, the appointment on - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42732-DB WP No. 31801 of 2025 compassionate ground is provided to the family members of the deceased is to tide over the immediate financial crisis and the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It further held that, it is not feasible now to consider the claim of the applicant on compassionate ground. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3597/2009 in the case of Eastern Coal Fields Limited Vs. Anil Badyakar & others, referring to paragraph Nos.15 and 19 of the judgment, held that, the object and purpose of providing compassionate appointment is to provide an immediate financial help to tide over the financial crisis and the delay in making the application is to be considered adversely against the family, as the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed after the lapse of time as the crisis is over. Applying the judgment to the case on hand, the Tribunal has held that the applicant approached the Tribunal after much delay to be precise 24 years from - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42732-DB WP No. 31801 of 2025 the date of death of Government servant, the object of Rules is defeated as the Rules enacted with a profound object to extend a helping hand to the family to tide over the financial distress. Accordingly, dismissed the application. It is this order passed by the Tribunal is called in question in this writ petition. 18. Heard Sri.C.M.Nagabhushana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Vikas Rojipura, learned AGA for the respondents. 19. Sri. C.M.Nagabhushana, on the basis the entire record placed before the Tribunal, so also on the memo with the documents before this Court submits the following: GROUNDS 20. Firstly, the application submitted by the mother of the applicant on the earlier point of time was within the time stipulated under the Rules prevailing as on the date, for appointment on - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42732-DB WP No. 31801 of 2025 compassionate grounds, however come to be rejected holding that she was aged 44 years as such, not eligible to seek appointment. 21. But, in the very same endorsement the authority concerned has stated clearly that she may re-approach the authorities after any one of the children attend age of majority, for appointment on compassionate ground. 22. A legitimate expectation was created through the endorsement keeping a ray of hope that the case of the family would be considered. 23. Secondly, the mother of the applicant made an application in 2005, immediately after the applicant attending the age of majority for appointment on compassionate ground. The said application has been forwarded by all the authorities concerned to the Government holding that the earlier rejection of the application filed within time was a - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42732-DB WP No. 31801 of 2025 gross mistake committed by officer of the State. Though the application now filed is belated be considered, on humanity ground as the family is still not come out from the financial crises. 24. Thirdly, the concerned Hon’ble Minister of the department as well as the Hon’ble Chief Minister have passed orders for considering the case as special case and even directed the authorities to place the same before the cabinet for considering appointment on compassionate ground, in view of peculiar circumstances of the case. The note/order of the concerned Minister as well as Hon’ble Chief Minister also directs to take approval from legal department. 25. Fourthly, the Tribunal has failed to consider the documents produced, which clearly shows that the Government is of the opinion that though the application is not in time in terms of Rules, but be considered in the peculiar facts and - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42732-DB WP No. 31801 of 2025 circumstances of the case, as the family till date not evolved upon from financial crisis and eking out the livelihood with all difficulties, comes within the terms of the object of the Rules of appointment on compassionate ground, not withstanding the delay in filing the application, as the earlier application was filed within time but rejected under mistaken note. 26. Fifthly, the Tribunal in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case erred in law by holding that, since the death occurred in 2001 there is a delay of more than 24 years, by the time the matter reached for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the application on two grounds; firstly, there is no provision under Rules 1996, to condone the delay in making the application for appointment on compassionate ground; Secondly the appointment on compassionate ground is provided to the family members of the deceased is to tide over the - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42732-DB WP No. 31801 of 2025 immediate financial crises. The rejection on both the grounds are apparently unsustainable, in law. 27. He further submits that, the Tribunal erred in holding that the delay in making the application is attributable to the family of the deceased employee. The said opinion of the Tribunal is against the facts placed before it. The tribunal has failed to consider that the Government headed by the Hon’ble Chief Minister, issued direction to the concerned authority to put up the matter before the cabinet for consideration of the case in the State, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, as the mistake is not attributable to the family, but by the instrumentality of the State. In these circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have held that the endorsement issued is unsustainable pending consideration of the matter before the Government, for decision. 28. He further articulate his submission on the point that it is for the State Government to take a - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42732-DB WP No. 31801 of 2025 decision to provide appointment on compassionate ground not withstanding the fact that there is a delay in filing the application. As the earlier application filed in time was rejected on misconception of law at that point of time, but, with an advise/direction to approach the authority immediately after one of the children attaining age of majority. This perhaps created a ray of hope to the mother of the applicant and made her to hung up and file the application in terms of the advise/directions stated in the endorsement. The rejection of the application by the Tribunal stating on, among the ground, that, the earlier endorsement has not been challenged holds no water as there is a legal expectation created in the endorsement to make an application in future. 29. With this Sri.C.M.Nagabhushana, urges us to consider the case of the applicant, by quashing the order passed by the Tribunal and allow the application quashing the endorsement and issue a - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42732-DB WP No. 31801 of 2025 mandamus to the Government to issue appointment order to the applicant on compassionate ground by considering her application. 30. Though, Sri. Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional Government Advocate refutted the submissions of Sri.C.M.Nagabhushana, but to the query of the Court on the documents placed and the peculiar facts and circumstances is not in a possession to support either the order passed by the Tribunal or the endorsement issued by the authority in the teeth of proceedings of the Government culminated in a direction to place the same before the cabinet for a decision on the application of the applicant to issue appointment order on compassionate ground. 31. As could be seen from the endorsement issued in the year 2002, while rejecting the application filed by mother of the applicant, there was a direction to re-approach the authority with the - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42732-DB WP No. 31801 of 2025 application immediately after any one of the children attaining the age of majority. Perhaps this could be the reason for the mother of the applicant not to challenge the said endorsement, which cannot be found fault with. The Tribunal has missed this aspect of the matter while forming the opinion that the mother has not challenged the endorsement and the same operates as fatal to the application on hand. 32. This Court exercising the plenary power under Article 226, while exposing the cause of a citizen bound in law to protect the interest of the citizen against the arbitrary and unreasonable action of the instrumentality of the Government, when apparently the fault is not attributable to the concerned litigant. 33. Our view gain support on the touch stone of the doctrine of actus curie neminem grabavit (an action of Court shall prejudice no one). The said doctrine could even be extended against the - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42732-DB WP No. 31801 of 2025 administrative action/inaction, lapses which could put a citizen in untold hardship, be set right by considering peculiar facts and circumstances of the particular case, when the genesis of fault lies with the State instrumentality. 34. In the case on hand, as the State headed by the Hon’ble Chief Minsiter, directed the authorities to put up the case for consideration of applicants appointment on compassionate ground before the cabinet not withstanding the provisions pressed in the situation operates against her. 35. The record produced clearly show that the family of the deceased employee is still not evolved from financial distress, which it met immediately on the death of the Government employee. The object of Rules having met (i.e., the appointment to be provided to the family members of the deceased is to tied over immediate financial crises), the case of the applicant cannot be turned down on the hipper - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42732-DB WP No. 31801 of 2025 technicality when the fault roots with the instrumentality of the State landing the applicant and her entire family in untold hardship all these years, with a ray of hope of consideration of the case, as the same amounts to applying salt to injury. 36. This Court given the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, taking cognizance of the documents produced especially in the teeth of direction by the Hon’ble Chief Minister and the concerned minister to place the case for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground before the cabinet is of the considered opinion that the case of the applicant must be considered by the Government of appointment on compassionate ground. 37. We find considerable force in the arguments advanced by Sri. C.M.Nagabhushana. - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42732-DB WP No. 31801 of 2025 38. For the forgoing reasons the order/impugned endorsement as well as the order of the Tribunal confirming the same required to be quashed. For the reasons stated supra applicant succeeds on consideration of her case for appointment on compassionate ground. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) Writ Petition is allowed. ii) Order dated 07.08.2025 in Application No.721/2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal is quashed. Consequently, the application is allowed, the endorsement impugned dated 15.10.2024 issued by respondent No.1 is quashed. iii) The respondent-State authorities are directed with the issuance of mandamus to issue the order of appointment on compassionate ground considering the application of the applicant in peculiar facts - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42732-DB WP No. 31801 of 2025 and circumstances of the case along with admitted benefits in law. iv) The time for compliance is two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE MH/PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9