- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15030-DB WP No.102254 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. WRIT PETITION NO.102254 OF 2025 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: SRI. RAGHAVENDRA VASANTARAO KULKARNI AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. UN-EMPLOYEE, R/O. HOUSE NO.725, WARD NO.3, SAPTAGIRI EXTENSION ROAD NO.1, GADDANAKERI, TQ. & DIST. BAGALKOT-587103. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15030-DB WP No.102254 of 2025 2. THE DIRECTOR, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES, ANANDRAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001. 3. THE DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES, GADAG DISTRICT, GADAG-581117. 4. HEALTH OFFICER, TOWN FAMILY WELFARE CENTRE, GAJENDRAGAD, TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG-582114. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, PRL. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23-07-2024 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.10873/2023 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 2- 8-2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A & ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15030-DB WP No.102254 of 2025 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) The petitioner, an unsuccessful applicant before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) at Belagavi, is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 23.07.2024 passed in Application No.10873/2023, whereby the petitioner’s request for compassionate appointment is rejected. 2. Heard Sri. H.M.Dharigond, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. G.K.Hiregoudar, learned Principal Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the father of the petitioner one Vasantarao Kulkarni was working as Junior Health Assistant in respondent No.4-Town Family Welfare Centre and he died in harness on 13.03.1994. As on the date of death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner was a minor and he was to attain the age of majority only on 26.02.2002. In the meanwhile, in 1995, the mother of the petitioner had submitted a representation to respondent No.2 seeking to appoint her son on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15030-DB WP No.102254 of 2025 compassionate grounds on he attaining the age of majority. It is submitted that, on 04.02.2003, on attaining the age of majority, the petitioner is stated to have submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. Immediately respondent No.2 is said to have issued an endorsement dated 26.06.2003 (Annexure-B2) rejecting his application stating that the petitioner had not submitted the application for appointment on compassionate ground within the time prescribed under the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 (for short, ‘the 1996 Rules’) and also on the ground that the mother of the petitioner is a government servant. The petitioner approached the Tribunal in Application No.10831/2022 which was disposed of on 06.04.2023 with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds on the basis of the original application made in the year 2003. Subsequently, on consideration of petitioner's application the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected under the endorsement dated 20.07.2023, informing the petitioner that as the petitioner's application is not within the time prescribed under Rule 5 of the 1996 Rules and further for the reason that the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15030-DB WP No.102254 of 2025 petitioner’s mother is a government servant, which was suppressed while submitting the application. Questioning the said endorsement, the petitioner approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal, under impugned order, rejected the application, aggrieved by which the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Sri. H.M.Dharigond, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contented that, initially, the petitioner's mother submitted an application seeking appointment for her son i.e., the application, on compassionate grounds on he attaining the age of majority. He would further submit that the petitioner, after attaining the age of majority, made an application seeking compassionate appointment on 04.02.2003. It is submitted that the endorsement issued on 20.07.2003 was not communicated to the petitioner and as such there was no occasion for the petitioner to challenge the same. Further, the learned counsel would submit that the income of the mother of the petitioner is less than the pay of FDA, the application of the petitioner needs to be considered. 5. Sri G.K.Hiregoudar, learned Principal Government Advocate, on the other hand, would oppose the prayer of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15030-DB WP No.102254 of 2025 petitioner and would submit that when the government servant died in the year 1994 and at this length of time after nearly 30 years, the cause of action for the petitioner to seek appointment on compassionate grounds would not be available. Further, it is submitted that compassion would not remain static and would not remain till this date. If the petitioner were to survive all these years, he may need no assistance. Thus learned Principal Government Advocate would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 7. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner's father died in the year 1994. We are in the year 2025. The compassion would not remain for such a long time i.e., for nearly 32 years. If the petitioner were able to maintain himself all these years, the compassion would no more remain or would not continue for 25 years. The purpose and object of providing compassionate appointment is to provide financial assistance to the dependent of government servant who dies while in service. Moreover, the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15030-DB WP No.102254 of 2025 petitioner is said to have submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds in the year 2003 which is contrary to Rule 5 of the 1996 Rules. Moreover, he has approached the Court/Tribunal only in the year 2022. The said delay of nearly 20 years disentitles the petitioner to any relief. With the above, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition and accordingly, writ petition stands rejected. Pending I.As, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE KMS, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 34