- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49506-DB WP No. 18873 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34917 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH 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. 18873 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 34917 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) IN WP No. 18873/2025 BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA 571401 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49506-DB WP No. 18873 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34917 of 2025 AND: PRADEEP K AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS S/O. LATE ERAIAH K R/O NO.108-B, 4TH CROSS-EXAMINATION CMC LAYOUT, CHANNAPATNA RAMANAGARA DISTRICT …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIJAYA SIMHA REDDY D V, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN APPLICATION NO.1433/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU; ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12/11/2024 IN APPLICATION NO.1433/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE HONBLE KSAT, BENGALURU. IN WP NO. 34917/2025 BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA 571401 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49506-DB WP No. 18873 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34917 of 2025 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG FOR MR. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA) AND: PRADEEP K AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O LATE ERAIAH K R/O NO.108-B, 4TH CROSS, CMC LAYOUT, CHANNAPATNA RAMANAGARA DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIJAYA SIMHA REDDY D V., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN A.NO.7082/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU; ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE FINAL ORDER DATED 14/11/2022 IN A.NO.7082/2019 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SAID A.NO.7082/2019. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49506-DB WP No. 18873 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34917 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) The respondent, who has successfully prosecuted two rounds of proceedings with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal'], must now justify that he is entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds. The respondent's father is admitted to voluntary retirement on medical grounds on 30.03.2013. The present controversy is because the State Government has impugned the Tribunal's orders in the respondent's applicaiton. In the petition in W.P.No.34917/2025, the State and the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner have called in question the Tribunal's order dated 14.11.2022 in Application No. 7082/2019 and in W.P.No.18873/2025, the State and the Deputy Commissioner have called in question the Tribunal's order dated 12.11.2024 in Application No.1433/2024. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49506-DB WP No. 18873 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34917 of 2025 2. The Tribunal, by its order dated 14.11.2022, has interfered with the second petitioner's Endorsement dated 13.03.2018 directing the petitioners to consider the respondent's application under the Karnataka Civil Service (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Sixth Amendment) Rules, 2011 and to take action within four months). The second petitioner, with this order, has issued the subsequent Endorsement dated 19.08.2023 reiterating the decision to refuse the respondent's request for appointment on compassionate grounds. 3. The Tribunal has quashed this Endorsement dated 19.08.2023 allowing the respondent’s Application in No. 1433/2024. The Tribunal has opined that the petitioners should have considered the respondent’s request for appointment on compassionate grounds as per the law as of the date the respondent’s father voluntarily retired from - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49506-DB WP No. 18873 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34917 of 2025 service. The facts leading to the present petitions are stated thus. 3.1 The respondent's father [Late Eraiah K] was in service with the State as a Second Division Assistant. The respondent’s father, as certified on 10.09.2012 by the Medical Board, Krishna Rajendra Hospital, Mysore, was suffering from "Myasthenia Gravis, Pulmonary T.B (Reactivation); Diabetes Mellitus; Autoimmune Disease" and he could not work. This Medical Board has recommended admitting the respondent’s father to voluntary retirement on medical grounds. The application by the respondent's father for voluntary retirement on medical grounds is accepted on 30.03.2013. The respondent has applied on 10.06.2013 for appointment on compassionate grounds. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49506-DB WP No. 18873 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34917 of 2025 3.2 It is undisputed that in terms of Rule 3A1 of the Karnataka Civil Service (Appointment on Compassionate) Rules, 1996 [for short, 'the Compassionate Appointment Rules'], the respondent's application dated 10.06.2013 could not have been rejected on the ground that his father did not suffer a permanent incapacity as he is permitted to voluntarily retire on such ground; and the dispute is with the petitioners asserting that the respondent’s father did not suffer permanent incapacity because of his official responsibilities. There are Intra- department communications on whether the respondent's application should be considered favourably with the Government vide Notification dated 25.10.2013, keeping the operation of Rule 3A of the Compassionate Appointment Rules under suspension. 1 This Rule is introduced as the Sixth Amendment with effect from 13.10.2011. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49506-DB WP No. 18873 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34917 of 2025 3.3 The second petitioner is advised that because the application for voluntary retirement is prior to 25.10.2013, it must be considered favourably, and this is notwithstanding the substitution of Rule 3A of the Compassionate Appointment Rules with the Notification published on 07.08.2014 in the Official Gazette. The second petitioner, on 13.03.2018, has rejected the respondent's application, which had been pending for over five years. The respondent has repeated his application on 07.04.2018, and the second petitioner has rejected even this application vide the Endorsement dated 16.07.2018. The Tribunal has interfered with these Endorsements by its order dated 14.11.2022 in Application No.7082/2019. 3.4 The Tribunal has opined that the petitioners have accepted that the respondent's father was suffering from a medical condition; that the unamended Rule 3A was in force until 07.08.2014, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49506-DB WP No. 18873 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34917 of 2025 and therefore, the amended Rule 3A [amended by the Eighth Amendment2] could not be relied upon to reject the respondent's request. The Tribunal has therefore directed the petitioners to consider the respondent's request for compassionate appointment in terms of the unamended Rule 3A and not the amended Rule 3A. 3.5 The second petitioner, in the Endorsement dated 19.08.20233, has observed that the recommendation for consideration of the request for compassionate appointment is on 30.12.2013 and that there cannot be reconsideration because this recommendation is not accepted and the respondent’s application is rejected on 24.01.2018. The Tribunal, while allowing the respondent’s 2 The principal condition under the Eighth Amendment [which is brought into effect from 07.08.2014] is that the employee should have suffered permanent incapacity while on duty 3 This Endorsement is issued after reconsideration of the respondent’s application in compliance with the Tribunal’s direction vide its order dated 14/11/2022 in Application No. 7082/2019. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49506-DB WP No. 18873 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34917 of 2025 grievance with this Endorsement dated 19.08.2023 in the Application in No. 1433/2024, has opined that the petitioners should have considered the respondent’s request for appointment on compassionate grounds under the law as of the date the respondent’s father voluntarily retired from service. 4. Mr. Reuben Jacob, the learned Additional Advocate General, submits that this Court must intervene with the Tribunal's two impugned orders dated 14.11.2022 and 12.11.2024 because the settled law with the decision of the Apex Court in N.C.Santhosh v. State of Karnataka and Others4, is that the norms prevailing as on the date of the consideration of the application for appointment on compassionate grounds should be the basis for consideration and that this is because a dependent of a Government employee cannot assert any vested 4 (2020) 7 SCC 617 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49506-DB WP No. 18873 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34917 of 2025 right for appointment on compassionate grounds and can only request for consideration of his or her application. The learned Additional Advocate General further canvasses the following. [i] The operation of the unamended Rule 3A was suspended on 25.10.2013. Subsequently, the Eighth Amendment restricted the circumstances under which a dependent of a Government employee would seek appointment when such employee retires voluntarily on medical grounds, and now the entire possibility of granting such appointment is excluded with the omission of Rule 3A of the Compassionate Appointment Rules with effect from 09.04.2021. [ii] The State’s intendment in providing compassionate appointment when a Government servant is permitted to - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49506-DB WP No. 18873 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34917 of 2025 retire on medical grounds is to grant compassionate appointment when the concerned employee has suffered a permanent physical incapacity in the discharge of the responsibility assigned to him/her. [iii] However, the Rules were misused with the employees submitting a request for voluntary retirement on medical grounds for conditions not associated with the work. In the present case, the respondent's father suffered from autoimmune disease and age-related ailments, and he did not suffer any condition that could be attributed to the responsibilities that he was assigned with. 5. Mr. Vijaya Simha Reddy D. V, the learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49506-DB WP No. 18873 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34917 of 2025 Tribunal in its order dated 12.11.2024 has rightly observed that the petitioners cannot get over the fact that they had not called in question the Tribunal's earlier order dated 14.11.2022 and that is not redressed in any manner with the petitioners filing the present petition in W.P.No.34917/2025 after 2 - 3 years. The learned counsel further submits that the respondent in filing his application on 10.06.2013 had requested for appointment on compassionate grounds based on the Rule that was in vogue as of that date 6. Mr. Vijaya Simha Reddy D. V argues that it is now settled that once the appointment process is begun, [as in the present case for appointment on compassionate grounds] with an application for appointment, the Rules of the game cannot be changed. The learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in Tej Prakash Pathak - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49506-DB WP No. 18873 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34917 of 2025 and Others Vs. Rajasthan High Court and Others5 and the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench decision of this Court in the State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Sri Narasimha Murthy N6. 7. These rival submissions are considered in answering the following questions: [a] Whether this Court must, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, make an exception to the proposition that is exposited by the Apex Court in N.C. Santhosh's case [supra]. [b] If this Court cannot make an exception, should not this Court interfere with the Tribunal's orders dated 14.11.2022 and 12.11.2024 and uphold the second petitioner’s decision to issue Endorsement dated 19.08.2023 reiterating the rejection of the respondent’s application for appointment on compassionate grounds. 5 (2025) 2 SCC 1 6 W.P.No.45/2019 [S-KSAT] decided on 18.03.2020 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49506-DB WP No. 18873 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34917 of 2025 8. The Division Bench in Sri Narasimha Murthy N's case [supra] referring to Rule 3A of the Compassionate Appointment Rules [introduced by the Sixth Amendment], has directed the State to consider the application for appointment. However, in the present case, the petitioners rely upon the undisputed fact that the operation of the unamended Rule 3A was first kept under suspension on 25.10.2013 and later substituted by the Eighth Amendment. More crucially, the Apex Court, while considering whether the norm as of the date of the application, or norm as of the date of the consideration of the application, should prevail has exposited thus. 19. Applying the law governing compassionate appointment culled out from the above cited judgments, our opinion on the point on the issue is that the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be the basis for consideration of a claim for compassionate appointment. A dependent of a - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49506-DB WP No. 18873 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34917 of 2025 government employee, in the absence of any vested right accruing on the death of the government employee, can only demand consideration of his/her application. He is, however dis-entitled to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable on the day of death of the government employee. 9. In the case on hand with the Apex Court, the applicants had attained majority between two and years after the death of the parents and then applied under the Rules that had changed as of the date of the application. The Apex Court's opinion is that under the Compassionate Appointment Rules, first, a dependent of the deceased Government employee could make an application within one year from completing 18 years, and second, with the amendment, such dependent could only make an application if he or she has completed 18 years with one year from the date of the death of the employee. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49506-DB WP No. 18873 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34917 of 2025 10. The respondent relies upon Rule 3A [introduced through the Sixth Amendment in 2011], which was in vogue as of the date of the application. The Intra-department communication is on whether the respondent is entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds with this Rule being kept under suspension on 25.10.2023 and the change in Rule 3A [with the Eighth Amendment] w.e.f. 07.08.2014. There is no decision on the respondent’s application for over 5 years, and the application is ultimately rejected on 13.03.2018. The recommendations, even in these Intra-department communications [dated 15.10.2014 and 08.06.2015] for appointment are post the Eighth Amendment and only because the operation of the unamended Rule 3A is kept under suspicion. 11. These are the first set of circumstances, and the next is definitely the salient as underscored repeatedly by the Apex Court in N.C.Santhosh's case - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49506-DB WP No. 18873 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34917 of 2025 [supra]: [i] A dependant of a Government employee has no vested right to seek appointment on the death of the employee in harness and only gets a right for consideration, and [ii] the appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception to the Rule of equal opportunity enshrined in the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. These must be duly considered as must be the fact that the Rules are amended by the Eighth Amendment on 07.08.2014 by substitution to ensure that there are appointment on compassionate grounds when certain conditions are satisfied. The Rule 3A as introduced on 13.10.2011 by Sixth Amendment and substituted on 07.08.2014 by the Eighth Amendment is thus: The conditions of Rule 3-A of the Compassionate Appointment Rules vide Notification dated 13.10.2011 – This is referred to as the Sixth Amendment The conditions of Rule 3-A of the Compassionate Appointment Rules vide Notification dated 07.08.2014 - This is referred to as the Eighth Amendment - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49506-DB WP No. 18873 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34917 of 2025 (1) Without prejudice to the generality of these rules, dependents of the Government servant retired on medical grounds shall be eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. (2) All conditions of eligibility conditions of appointment and the procedure of application and appointment except rule 9 as applicable to dependents of deceased Government servant under these rules shall mutatis mutandis apply to the dependents of the Government servant retired on medical grounds with effect from the date of his retirement on medical grounds. (a) Permanent incapacitation should have incidentally occurred while on duty/at the time of performing the duties of the post held by the Government Servant; (b) It should be only on account of public service that too while on duty/while discharging the responsibility assigned to the post; (c) The words 'while on duty' includes his journey to and from his place of residence to the place of work; (d) The Government Servant is eligible to get pension under the Karnataka Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49506-DB WP No. 18873 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34917 of 2025 Rules, 2003 (e) Certification by the Medical Board that the Government Servant is not fit to perform any duty is necessary 12. The amendment to Rule 3A [the Eighth amendment by substitution] is to ensure that appointments on compassionate grounds are made where an employee retires voluntarily on medical grounds because of physical incapacity related to the work assigned and that the medical opinion is that the employee cannot discharge any further work. This intendment relates back to the date of introduction of Rule 3A in 2011. This Court must observe that the respondent has applied within three months from the date his father is admitted to voluntary retirement and that his father was on the verge of retirement. 13. All the afore circumstances are relevant in deciding whether there must be interference not just - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49506-DB WP No. 18873 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34917 of 2025 with the Tribunal's order dated 14.11.2022 but also with the Tribunal's subsequent order dated 12.11.2024. This Court is of the considered view that in the afore circumstances as also the lapse of time from the date of application to now and that the petitioners have not agreed to the respondent's request at any point of time; that the petitioners cannot be constrained by the Tribunal's order dated 14.11.2022 and that the Tribunal's subsequent order dated 12.11.2024 will be impermissible. The questions for consideration are answered accordingly, and the petitions are allowed by this order. Hence, the following: ORDER The writ petition in W.P.No.18873/2025 is allowed quashing the Tribunal's order dated 12.11.2024 in Application No.1433/2024 and the petition in W.P.No.34917/2025 is - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49506-DB WP No. 18873 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34917 of 2025 allowed quashing the Tribunal's order dated 14.11.2022 in Application No.7082/2019. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE RB