- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10065-DB WA No. 100314 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO. 100314 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: KALAVATI D/O. LATE SUBBARAO TIRUMALE, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. NEAR AMBA BHAVANI TEMPLE, JAI BHIM NAGAR, DHARWAD. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S. G. KADADAKATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, 9TH FLOOR, VISHWESHWARAYYA TOWER, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, HUBBALLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580025. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. GIRISH HULMANI, ADV. FOR R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN W.P.103939/2022 ORDER DATED 27.05.2024 BY ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTER, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10065-DB WA No. 100314 of 2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) The appellant who was the petitioner in the writ proceedings has called in question the correctness of the order dated 27.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.103939/2022. The order in Writ Petition No.103939/2022 has rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on grounds that the application stated to have filed on 06.11.2000 by the petitioner was not available in the records of the respondent No.3-Hubballi Dharwad Municipal Corporation (for short, ‘Corporation’). The writ petition was rejected on certain other grounds as well. 2. The parties are referred to as per their rank in the writ petition for the sake of convenience. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10065-DB WA No. 100314 of 2024 3. The brief facts relevant for the present purpose are that the father of the petitioner was stated to be working as Second Divisional Assistant in respondent No.3-Corporation. It is stated that, upon his death while he was in service, the petitioner is stated to have filed an application on 06.11.2000 seeking for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, it is made out from the facts that the petitioner has been making representations and that such representations start from the representation dated 04.05.2016 onwards. 4. It is further stated that, in the year 2017, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking for appropriate direction as regards consideration of application made for compassionate appointment. Said writ petition in W.P.No.111012/2017 came to be disposed off on 07.03.2018. At appears that subsequent to disposal of the said writ petition, the Director, Directorate of Municipal Administration has rejected the claim of the petitioner by a reasoned order dated 09.08.2018. The said order was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10065-DB WA No. 100314 of 2024 challenged in the writ proceedings in W.P.No.103939/2022. The learned Single Judge by detailed order considering all contentions has recorded a specific finding that the claim of the petitioner that application was filed on 06.11.2000 seeking compassionate appointment was not available in the records of the authority. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the other representations filed only in the year 2016 and has not interfered with the decision of the authorities as regards the application filed seeking compassionate appointment after delay of 16 years. The contention of the petitioner that the delay on the part of the respondents was the cause for delay in approaching the Court was not accepted. The learned Single Judge has specifically recorded that the action of the petitioner appears to have been only after the year 2015 in addressing correspondence to the respondent No.3- Corporation. Accordingly, the order of the Director, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10065-DB WA No. 100314 of 2024 Directorate of Municipal Administration was not interfered and the writ petition was rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention to the correspondence dated 21.05.2016 by respondent No.3-Corporation to the Director, Directorate of Municipal Administration and submits that in the said correspondence, there is a reference to the petitioner’s application dated 06.11.2000. However, it is to be noticed that the Director, Directorate of Municipal Administration has specifically sought for clarification regarding the alleged application of the petitioner dated 06.11.2000 and in terms of Annexure-M, it is clear that respondent No.3- Corporation had verified records and observed that there was no reference to the said application. If that were to be so that there is no record for having given the application on 06.11.2000 and subsequent correspondences were only after the year 2016, obviously, the petitioner having slept over his rights between 2000 and 2016, the claim for compassionate appointment ought not to be considered. It - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10065-DB WA No. 100314 of 2024 is settled position of law that the claim for compassionate appointment ought to be made and pursued with due diligence. As observed by the Apex Court in the case of the GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS. P.VENKATESH in Civil Appeal No.2425/2016 “this staleness of the claim took away very basis of providing compassionate appointment.” 6. In the present case, taking note of the lack of diligence in pursuing the application for compassionate appointment, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is rejected. Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE RH /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3