- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2226-DB WP No. 100616 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT PETITION NO.100616 OF 2025 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: SRI. PAVANKUMAR S/O. SETURAMACHAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC. UN-EMPLOYEE, R/O.SRI. BHIMADHAV NILAYA, HOUSE NO.5-1-92, 4TH CROSS, BUS-DEPOT. ROAD, GANGAVATHI, TQ. KOPPAL, DIST. KOPPAL-583227. - PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES, ANNADRAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001. 3. THE DIRECTOR, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES ANANDRAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001. 4. THE DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES, KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL-583231. 5. HEALTH OFFICER, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, TAWARAGERE, TQ. KOPPAL, DIST. KOPPAL-583231. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, PRL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2226-DB WP No. 100616 of 2025 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 07.09.2023 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO. 10872/2023 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 02.08.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A & ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD) The petitioner is unsuccessful in his application with the Karnataka State Appellate Tribunal, Belagavi [for short, ‘the Tribunal’] in his request for directions to the respondents to grant him appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner’s application with the Tribunal is in Application No. 10872/2023, and the Tribunal’s order is dated 07.09.2023. The Tribunal has rejected the petitioner’s request essentially for the reason which reads as under: As admitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant, the applications filed by the applicant seeking compassionate appointment were rejected on - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2226-DB WP No. 100616 of 2025 29.1.2002 and 7.2.2003. The applicant admittedly has challenged the said endorsements, after gap of 20 years. For having approached this Tribunal at this length of time, the reason given by the applicant are that he has submitted several requests to the respondents from 2003, but they were not considered by the respondents till today, further he is unemployed and having no source of income for livelihood and he is depending on his mother and he has to look after his younger sisters. For the abnormal delay of 20 years in approaching this Tribunal, the applicant has not given acceptable reasons. From 2003, the applicant has slept over the matter without agitating his right. Admittedly, after 20 years, he has approached this Tribunal seeking to quash the said endorsements without giving cogent reasons. Hence, on the ground of delay itself, the above application cannot be entertained. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions rendered has held that the Courts and Tribunals are there to protect the rights of the litigants, who are diligent in agitating their rights and not for those who have slept over their rights for years together.” 2. Sri H.M. Dharigond, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the question of delay must be examined in the light of these facts. The petitioner’s father has died on 27.03.1996, and the petitioner’s mother has - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2226-DB WP No. 100616 of 2025 applied for compassionate appointment on 17.11.1996. The concerned respondents have not responded to this application, and therefore, the petitioner has applied for appointment after he attained majority in the year 2001 grounds. The petitioner’s application is rejected on 29.01.2002, and the petitioner has therefore filed another application on 28.09.2002, which is also rejected on 07.02.2003. The petitioner has once again applied on 10.03.2003, and this application was pending as on the date when the petitioner invoked the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. 3. Sri G.K. Hiregoudar, the learned Principal Government Advocate who is called upon to accept notice for the respondents, is heard on the petitioner’s grievance in the light of these circumstances and the principles that are enumerated by the Apex Court in the decision in The State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors1. The Apex Court has listed the following as the principles that govern the Courts in deciding on the entitlement for compassionate grounds. 1 AIR 2023 [SC] 1467 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2226-DB WP No. 100616 of 2025 i. That a provision for compassionate appointment makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment to a post by following a particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions and must be resorted to only in order to achieve the stated objectives, i.e., to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. ii. Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the public sector undertaking is to see that the dependants of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. iii. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. Compassionate employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over. iv. That compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years. 4. The Apex Court after emphasizing the afore principles has also stated that it would be of no avail to - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2226-DB WP No. 100616 of 2025 grant compassionate appointment to the dependents of the deceased after the crisis that is because of the demise of the employee is overcome. In the present case though the petitioner’s application is rejected in January 2023, he has filed repeated applications without availing legal remedy for over 20 years. If the petitioner’s repeated application in March 2003 was pending consideration without any decision, he could not have waited for 20 years and if he has waited for 20 years, the delay is fatal. As such, the petition is rejected. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE BVV, CT: VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 11