- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48342-DB WP No. 19002 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO.19002 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY SCIENCE, M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY SCIENCE, M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY SCIENCE, CHITRADURGA, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. &PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V. SHIVA REDDY, AGA) AND: 1. PRAVEEN KUMAR, S/O LATE K JAYARAMUDU, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48342-DB WP No. 19002 of 2025 RESIDING AT MEERASABIHALLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 536. &RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION TO QUASH / SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.01.2024 IN APPLICATION NO.2846/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND ETC. 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 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) The State of Karnataka by its Principal Secretary and others, is in this petition before us calling in question the order dated 02.01.2024 in Application No.2846/2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, [for short, 8the Tribunal9], allowing the application, setting aside the impugned endorsement dated 29.10.2021, passed by the first respondent and further direction to consider the case of the respondent herein for appointment on - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48342-DB WP No. 19002 of 2025 compassionate grounds, if he is otherwise entitled in a time bound manner. 2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. A factual matrix leading to filing of the present petition are as under:- The applicant is the adopted son of Sri.K.Jayaramudu. He was adopted on 29.03.2005, by way of deed of adoption, registered with the Jurisdictional Sub-Registrar being document No.CLK-4-00022-2004-05, stored in CD.No.CLKD7 (Annexure-A1). 4. Sri. K.Jayaramudu, entered into service with the second respondent department as group 'D' employee. He died on 20.01.2019, while working as Veterinary Assistant in Primary Veterinary Health Center, Obalapura, Challakere Taluk. 5. The applicant being the adopted son, submitted an application on 03.08.2021 through the Deputy Director, Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Science, Chitradurga with all the necessary particulars. The - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48342-DB WP No. 19002 of 2025 application was then forwarded by third respondent to second respondent vide letter dated 06.08.2021. The appointing authority rejected the application on the ground that in terms of Rule 2B of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Amendment) Rules, 1996 (for short 'Rules, 1996'), the applicant is not entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds (Annexure-A5). 6. Aggrieved by the order of rejection, the applicant was before the Tribunal in Application No.2846/2023 inter alia urging mainly on the Rule 2B of Rules, 1996, contending that in the said Rule, there is no specific exclusion of adopted son from the definition of the term 'family'. He further contended that Rule 2(A) of the said Rule defines term "dependent" of a deceased Government servant, which states that he should be a member of the family of the deceased Government servant who was living with and dependent on the deceased Government servant and who fulfils conditions specified in explanation to Sub Rule (1) of Rule 4. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48342-DB WP No. 19002 of 2025 7. It was further contention of the applicant that, being an adopted son he is dependent on the deceased's Government servant and was living with him till his death. He further urged that Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 4, provides for eligibility for appointment, wherein even the adopted son or daughter of the deceased employee could seek for appointment. The Rule originally stood excluded, adopted son or daughter, but by way of Notification dated 09.04.2021, brought amendment to Rules, 1996, wherein by way of substitution, an adopted son is also included within the definition, which says that a son or daughter who is chosen by the widow of the Government servant also included. 8. It is further contented that the Appointing Authority has not properly consulted the subsequent amendment brought to the Rules by way of Notification dated 09.04.2021, which has resulted in issuing the endorsement declining to appoint the applicant on compassionate grounds, though he is otherwise entitled in terms of law. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48342-DB WP No. 19002 of 2025 9. The State Government filed reply statement, taking the contention that there is no provision for appointment on compassionate grounds of an adopted child under Amendment Rules, 1996. It is further contended by the State Government that there is no specific words used in the Rules which suggest that even adopted son or daughter be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds, what is stated in the Rules are the son/daughter and not expressly included adopted son or daughter. As such, the endorsement issued is in accordance with law and does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court, and accordingly, sought to dismiss the application. 10. The application was filed belatedly along with an application seeking condonation of delay as provided under the Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985. The Tribunal allowed the application for condonation of delay, accepting the cause shown in the affidavit in support of the application. 11. The Tribunal on merits of the case was of the opinion, that even adopted son entitled for consideration for - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48342-DB WP No. 19002 of 2025 appointment on compassionate grounds. Reliance was placed for the opinion supra on the Judgement of this Court in WP.No.211068/2020 dated 23.02.2022, in the case of Kumari Sweta Vs. The Managing Director, KPTCL, Corporate Office, Kaveri Bhavan, Bengaluru and 3 others, wherein the learned single Judge of this Court, allowed the application quashing the endorsement issued against the adopted son, declining to admit him for appointment on compassionate grounds, holding that the word 'son' also includes 'adopted son' and a distinction is wholly illogical and arbitrary and disallowing the adopted son to seek appointment on compassionate grounds, if otherwise qualified, is unsustainable in law. 12. The Tribunal also held that the order of the single Judge in the petition stated supra is based on the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, more specifically stated in paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of the judgment. Accordingly, held that the endorsement issued is not sustainable in law and allowed the application quashing the endorsement dated 29.10.2021, with further direction to the petitioner herein to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48342-DB WP No. 19002 of 2025 consider the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground, if he is otherwise eligible/entitled within a time bound manner. It is this order passed by the Tribunal is called in question by the State in this petition. 13. Heard Sri. V.Shiva Reddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the petitioner, perused entire writ papers. 14. Sri.Reddy, reiterated the grounds taken before the Tribunal in the statement of objections and contended that the word 'son' stated in the Rules does not include the 'adopted son', since there is no express inclusion in the Rules. However, to the query of this Court regarding the Notification dated 09.04.2021 and amendment is by way of substitution, Sri.Reddy is not in position to differ with the same, as there are umpteen number of judgments by this Court holding the amendment brought by Notification dated 09.04.2021, amounts substitution as such having retrospective effect. Notifications stated supra is as substituted one. The law on the effect of substitution is no more res-integra. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48342-DB WP No. 19002 of 2025 15. In view of umpteen number of judgments, we are of the considered opinion that whenever any amendment brought in by way of substitution in any law, it applies retrospectively from the date, the law is enacted. In view of the same, the contentions raised by the State Government on the premise that the adopted son is barred under Rule 2B of Amendment Rules, 1996, cannot be countenanced. 16. We find no infirmities in the order passed by the Tribunal, to take a different view, which calls for interference at our hands in this petition. In the circumstances, petition fails and accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3