- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54234-DB WP No. 36927 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 36927 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SRI SANDEEP KUMAR B G S/O LATE GANGADHARA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS NO. 142, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN JSS OLD SCHOOL BUILDING ROAD RAGHAVENDRANAGAR MYSURU …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR B O.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54234-DB WP No. 36927 of 2025 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KARNATAKA STATE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001. 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, SOUTHERN RANGE, MYSURU 570 001. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU-570 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIKAS ROJIPURA., AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22/02/2023 IN APPLICATION NO.5492/2021 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54234-DB WP No. 36927 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) The petitioner has filed his application in No. 5492/2021 with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal [for short, 'the Tribunal'] calling in question the Endorsements dated 23.02.2019, 12.02.2020 and 18.08.2021. The fourth respondent has issued these Endorsements informing the petitioner/ her mother [Mrs. Rajeswari] that the application/s for appointment on compassionate ground cannot be considered. The details of the Endorsements of the fourth respondent are: {a] Endorsement dated 23.02.2019. The petitioner's mother, Mrs. Rajeshwari, has filed this application for appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground contending that her husband, Mr. B. A. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54234-DB WP No. 36927 of 2025 Gangadara Murthy, an Additional Head Constable with the District Armed Reserve Police, Mysuru, has died while in harness on 17.11.2018 and her son must be given an appointment on compassionate ground to enable the family to tide over financial constraints. The fourth respondent has issued this Endorsement informing the petitioner's mother [Mrs. Rajeshwari] that her husband had been served with Order 01.07.2015 compulsorily retiring him from service, that he has died on 17.11.2018 i.e., 3 years from the date of his compulsory retirement and that because he was not in service as of the date of his demise, her son cannot be granted an appointment on compassionate ground. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54234-DB WP No. 36927 of 2025 [b] Endorsement dated 12.02.2020. The petitioner's mother [Mrs. Rajeshwari], despite the Endorsement dated 23.02.2019, has submitted another application on 29.08.2019 repeating her request for an appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. The fourth respondent has once again informed her that the application cannot be considered because when her husband, Mr. B. A. Gangadara Murthy, died on 17.11.2018 he was not in Government service, and he was served with the order dated 01.07.2015 compulsorily retiring him from service. [c] Endorsement dated 18.08.2021. The petitioner's mother [Mrs. Rajeshwari] has applied again repeating the request for appointment on 12.08.2021. The first respondent has referred to the previous - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54234-DB WP No. 36927 of 2025 Endorsements and informed the petitioner's mother that her application for appointment to the petitioner is despite the previous Endorsements. The fourth respondent has also informed the petitioner's mother that the petitioner will not be entitled to appointment. 2. The petitioner’s case as presented with the Tribunal is as follows: His father, Mr. Gangadhar Murthy, has challenged the Order dated 01.07.2025 in his Application No. 1090/2016. After his father's demise on 17.11.2018, his legal representatives [including himself] have successfully prosecuted the application. The Tribunal has allowed the application on 21.02.2019 quashing the order dated 01.07.2015 holding that the period between 01.07.2015 and 17.11.2018 must be considered as "Additional Qualifying Service" for calculating the pension and pensionary benefits with the observation that the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54234-DB WP No. 36927 of 2025 period on suspension shall be considered for computing pension. The petitioner has contended that the consequence of the Tribunal's order dated 21.02.2019 would be that his father would be deemed to be in service and therefore the fourth respondent could not have refused compassionate appointment. 3. The fourth respondent and the other respondents have resisted the petitioner's application contending that because the petitioner's father, Mr. Gangadara Murthy, was not in actual service on the date of his demise [17.11.2018], that the petitioner cannot be admitted to compassionate ground appointment. The fourth respondent and the other respondents have also referred to the criminal proceedings against the petitioner's mother, the petitioner, and his family members in CC No.24075/2019 on the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bangalore City for - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54234-DB WP No. 36927 of 2025 offences punishable under Section 143, 448, 149, 147, 323, 324 and 506 of IPC adverting to Rule 10 of the Karnataka Civil Service [General Recruitment] Rules, 1977 to contend that no person can be appointed to government service unless such person enjoys a good character and is suitable. 4. The Tribunal, because of its order dated 21.02.2019 in Application No. 1090/2016, has opined that the Endorsements issued stating that Mr. Gangadhar Murthy was not in service as of the date of his death cannot be justified. However, on a scrutiny of the allegations in CC No. 24075/2019, the Tribunal has opined that the petitioner, who has not filed a rejoinder despite opportunity, has suppressed the details of the criminal proceedings and he cannot be admitted to appointment on compassionate ground because of the antecedent circumstances. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54234-DB WP No. 36927 of 2025 5. Sri B. O. Anil Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Tribunal, after opining that the fourth respondent/respondents could not have rejected the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment after its order dated 21.02.2019 in Application No. 1090/2016, could not have rejected the application for appointment on the ground of the petitioner's suitability because of Rule 10 of the Karnataka Civil Service [General Recruitment Rules] 1977 because the respondents had not examined the petitioner's suitability to the post. Sri Vikas Rojipura, the learned Additional Government Advocate, who is called upon to accept notice for the respondents, submits that the Tribunal's order, contending that the petitioner has to be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground must show that his father was in actual service and unless this is shown the petitioner will not be eligible for appointment. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54234-DB WP No. 36927 of 2025 6. The petitioner's father was compulsorily retired from service by the order dated 01.07.2015, and as of the date of his death, he was prosecuting his challenge to the decision dated 01.07.2015. The compassionate appointment, which is an exception to the general rule of appointment, cannot be claimed as a matter of right or given as a matter of course. Further, the appointment on compassionate ground is to help the dependants of a Government Servant to tide over a financial crisis or destitution. These aspects are clearly spelt out in the Karnataka Civil Service Appointment on Compassionate Grounds Rules, 1996. The petitioner and his family, even as of the date of the death of his father in the year 2018, did not have the support of the salary that would have been admitted to his father if he was in service and they have managed. 7. This Court is also of the view that it is necessary for a dependent of a Government Servant - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54234-DB WP No. 36927 of 2025 to show that the person was in service as of the date of his death. If this condition is not satisfied, the applicant cannot make a claim for appointment on compassionate ground. This would be the position even if the Government Servant, because of a penalty, was out of service on the date of death; and this cannot change only because the punishment imposed is interfered with later. The Tribunal has held that the period between the date of the order imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement and the date of death should be treated as an additional service for retirement benefit. This is a notional advantage that is given for extending financial benefit. 8. This Court, in the circumstances discussed, is also not persuaded to opine that the petitioner should succeed on the ground that the fourth respondent [the respondents] has not challenged the Tribunal’s finding based on its order dated 21.02.2019 or that the Tribunal has refused to - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54234-DB WP No. 36927 of 2025 intervene examining the petitioner’s suitability for the Government service when the respondents have not rejected this application on this ground. This Court opines that if any relief is granted notwithstanding the circumstance discussed, it would amount to allowing technicalities to triumph over the statutory scheme, and hence, the petition is rejected. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE NV*