- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29336-DB WP No. 11738 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 11738 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI MANJUNATHA A. K., S/O LATE SUJATHAMM, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC AUTO DRIVER, R/AT HOUSE No. LIG - 3, HOUSING BOARD COLONY, KERAGOTE, CHITRADURGA 577501. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PRABHU L., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001. 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29336-DB WP No. 11738 of 2024 VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001. 3. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, ANANDARAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU 560009. 4. DISTRICT SURGEON, DISTRICT HOSPITAL, CHITRADURGA 577501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.03.2022 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KAT AT BENGALURU IN A.No-4576/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-C. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri Prabhu L., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Smt. B. Sukanya Baliga, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29336-DB WP No. 11738 of 2024 2. This petition is filed challenging the order dated 15.03.2022 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in Application No.4576/2021, whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking grant of compassionate appointment before respondent No.3 was rejected on 04.06.2015. 3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was born on 10.10.1980 and was adopted by Smt. Sujathamma on 14.02.1986. The said adoption was registered only on 13.12.2012. Smt. Sujathamma had, on 18.10.1996, nominated the petitioner as her nominee to receive the employment benefits, describing him as her son. After the death of Smt. Sujathamma on 28.10.2013, while serving as Literate Assistant in the District Hospital, Chitradurga, the petitioner submitted representations on 09.04.2014 and 08.09.2014 before respondent No.4 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. Recommendations for release of leave encashment and pensionary benefits were made in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No.4 forwarded the petitioner’s application to respondent No.3, which came to be rejected on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29336-DB WP No. 11738 of 2024 the ground that there is an explicit bar under the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 (for short, ‘the Rules, 1996’), as an adopted child of a deceased Government servant is not eligible for such appointment. 4. The petitioner contends that the said Rules are in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and also contrary to Section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which accords an adopted child the same rights and status as that of a natural-born child. The rejection of the application by respondent No.3 on 04.06.2015 was challenged before the Tribunal after a lapse of 5 years and 3 months, which the petitioner attributes to financial constraints following the demise of Smt. Sujathamma and the difficulties arising during the Covid-19 pandemic. 5. The Tribunal dismissed the petition on the ground that it was filed after a lapse of 5 years and 3 months, and was therefore barred by delay and latches. It was further held that the petitioner, being an adopted son of Smt. Sujathamma, is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29336-DB WP No. 11738 of 2024 not entitled to compassionate appointment, as the same is expressly barred under Rule 3(3) of the Rules, 1996. 6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. The case of the petitioner is that he was adopted by Smt. Sujathamma on 14.02.1986, his date of birth being 10.10.1980. The adoption was registered on 13.12.2012. Smt. Sujathamma was serving as Literate Assistant in the District Hospital, Chitradurga, and had nominated the petitioner to receive benefits under the Karnataka State Employees’ Group Insurance Scheme, 1981, as well as gratuity and family pension. Upon her demise on 28.10.2013, the petitioner submitted an application on 09.04.2014 seeking compassionate appointment. Respondent No.3, by endorsement dated 04.06.2015, rejected the application on the ground that an adopted son is not entitled to such appointment under the Rules, 1996. The application challenging the said order was filed before the Tribunal in the year 2021, after a delay of 5 years and 3 months. Without examining the correctness of the endorsement, the Tribunal, applying Rule 3(3) of the Rules, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29336-DB WP No. 11738 of 2024 1996, rejected the application on the ground of delay and laches, observing that compassionate appointment is intended to immediately tide over the financial crisis faced by the family of the deceased Government employee. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari and Others1, while evaluating the scheme of appointment on compassionate grounds, held that compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time after the death of a Government servant. The object of the scheme is to enable the family to overcome the financial crisis faced at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner. Compassionate employment cannot be claimed after the lapse of a considerable period and once the crisis has been overcome. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that it would not be justified to direct appointment on compassionate grounds after a considerable delay following the death of a Government employee, as such a direction would not be in furtherance of the object of the scheme. It was also observed that, in such circumstances, the sense of immediacy is 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 219 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29336-DB WP No. 11738 of 2024 evidently lost on the part of the claimant in seeking compassionate appointment. 9. In the present case, the Government servant died on 28.10.2013, and the application came to be filed on 09.04.2014, which was within a reasonable time. However, the said application was rejected on 04.06.2015, and the rejection was challenged before the Tribunal only in the year 2021. 10. The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Debabrata Tiwari (supra) would equally apply to the delay in pursuing the remedies available when such application is rejected by the competent authority. The sense of immediacy is lost when the available remedy is not pursued within a reasonable time. A delay of 5 years and 3 months cannot be regarded as a reasonable period. The Tribunal, after considering the contentions urged and the delay in challenging the endorsement, has rightly rejected the application on the ground of delay. 11. It is also contended that, as on the date of death of the Government servant, the restriction under the Rules - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29336-DB WP No. 11738 of 2024 disqualifying an adopted son or daughter of a deceased Government servant from being considered for appointment had been omitted, and therefore, the endorsement issued on that ground is not sustainable. 12. As we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition on the ground of delay and laches, the other issues regarding the entitlement of an adopted son to seek appointment on compassionate grounds under the 1996 Rules are kept open. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30