- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17359 WP No. 108987 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 108987 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI. SADASHIV S/O. SHIVARAYAPPA URABINNAVAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. 415, WARD NO.2, MADHABHAVI, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE 587312. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ROHIT N. LATUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECETARIAT, KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED, 4TH FLOOR, COFFEEE BOARD BUILDING NO.1, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE STATE OF KARNTAKA R/BY THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARIAT, THE PRINCIPAL ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, 305, 306, 3RD FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560001. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED, NORTH RANGE, SUBHAS NAGAR, BELAGAVI 590001. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED, C.B.C SUB-DIVISION NO.4, KABBUR, VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.12.11 16:18:15 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17359 WP No. 108987 of 2025 DIST. BELAGAVI 591222. 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED, CBC SUB DIVISION NO.4, KABBUR, DIST. BELAGAVI 591222. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21-01-2004 BEARING NO. WRD.122.EASV.2003 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 PRINCIPAL ENGINEER, WATER DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE F, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: i. A writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21.01.2004 bearing No.WRD:122:EASV:2003 issued by the respondent No.2 principal engineer, water department, Government of Karnataka produced at Annexure F, in the interest of justice and equity. ii. A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the applications submitted by the petitioner vide applications dated:- 28.02.2000, 18- 06-2003, 06-10-2005 to the offices of Respondents produced at Annexure B, Annexure C, Annexure G for grant of appointment to civil services on compassionate basis, in the interest of justice and equity. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17359 WP No. 108987 of 2025 iii. A writ of mandamus further directing the respondents to grant the petitioner appointment to civil services on compassionate basis on account of death of his father Shri Shivarayappa Ramappa Urabinnavar who died in harness while discharging his duties as a watchman at the office of the respondents as per representations dated 28-02-2000 18-06-2003 06-10-2025 produced at Annexure B, Annexure C, Annexure G, in the interest of justice and equity. iv. Any other writ or direction or order the petitioner is found entitled to in the ends of justice. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5. 3. The father of the petitioner is said to be an employee of the Irrigation Department of the Government of Karnataka. The father of the petitioner dies in harness on 31.01.1985 close to 41 years ago. It is at that point in time the petitioner was a minor. Minor would mean a 1-year-old child, as he is now 42 years. The petitioner in the year 2000 submits a representation on his attaining majority. The representation goes unheeded. The petitioner forgets it. Later in the year 2025 wakes up from deep slumber and seeks to resurrect a claim that had already died in the year 2000 when he submitted his representation. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17359 WP No. 108987 of 2025 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been persistent demand by the petitioner right from 2000 till today for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds, but has not approached any Court of law from 2000 till today seeking a direction for consideration of his case. This is the first petition preferred on 24.11.2025. Today, as observed, we are in the year 2025. The death of the sole breadwinner of the family has taken place 41 years ago. If, after 41 years, this Court would direct consideration of the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, it would be stretching compassion to an extent that is impermissible in law. Therefore, any direction being issued now to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, as observed, 41 years after the death of the sole breadwinner, would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of J & K and others v. Sajad Ahmed MIR1, which reads as follows: “ 12. In State of Haryana v. Rani Devi2 it was held that the claim of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premise that he was dependent on the deceased employee. Strictly this 1 (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 766 2 (1996) 5 SCC 308 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17359 WP No. 108987 of 2025 claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 of 16 of the Constitution. However, such claim is considered reasonable as also allowable on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of the employee who had served the State and died while in service. That is why it is necessary for the authorities to frame rules, regulations or to issue such administrative instructions which can stand the test of Articles 14 and 16. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 13. In LIC of India. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar3 it was indicated that the High Courts and the Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointments on compassionate grounds when the regulations framed in respect thereof do not cover and contemplate such appointments. 14. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana4 it was ruled that public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and on merits. The appointment on compassionate ground cannot be a source of recruitment. It is merely an exception to the requirement of law keeping in view the fact of the death of the employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases, the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis. Such appointments on compassionate ground, therefore, have to be made in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. This favourable treatment to the dependant of the deceased employee must have clear nexus with the object sought to be achieved thereby i.e. relief against destitution. At the same time, however, it should not be forgotten that as against the destitute family of the deceased, there are millions and millions of 3 (1994) 2 SCC 718 4 (1994) 4 SCC 138 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17359 WP No. 108987 of 2025 other families which are equally, if not more, destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectation, and the change in the status and affairs of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment, which are suddenly upturned. 15. In Sushma Gosain v. Union of India5 it was observed that in the claims of appointment on compassionate grounds, there should be no delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to the death of the breadwinner in the family. Such appointments should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress.” 5. In the light of the claim of the petitioner being 41 years in the light of the death happening 41 years ago and the judgment of the Apex Court which directs that appointments of even 17 or 18 years should not be considered, the case would not merit any consideration. The petition does not deserve any indulgence. Accordingly, the petition is rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Kmv CT:ANB 5 (1989) 4 SCC 468