- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7513-DB WP No. 20549 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 20549 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. KUM.KUSUMA N., D/O LATE V. M. NAGESH, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/A KEELKOTE, KALIDASA BHADAVANE, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, KOLAR DISTRICT-563101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VIJAYA SIMHA REDDY D. V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, PRIMARY AND HIGHER EDUCATION, M.S. BUIDING, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, K. R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001. Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7513-DB WP No. 20549 of 2025 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR 563101. 4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR-563130. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.04.2025 PASSED IN APPLICATION No.312/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND THE IMPUGNED LETTER No.Sibbandi 1/K.A.T-3766/36/2021-22 DATED 25.10.2024 (ANNEXURE-A26) AND ANOTHER IMPUGNED LETTER No.Sibbandi 1/K.A.T - 3766/36/2021-22 DATED 15.11.2024 (ANNEXURE-A29) BOTH PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ARE UNJUST, ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO THE LAW OF LAND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7513-DB WP No. 20549 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri D.V. Vijaya Simha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. The unsuccessful applicant in Application No. 312/2025 is before this Court, impugning the order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, “the Tribunal”). 3. The brief facts, as noted, are that the petitioner is the daughter of late Sri V.M. Nagesh, who died on 25.04.2019 while working as an Assistant Teacher in the Higher Primary School, Masthi, Malur Taluk, Kolar District. The petitioner was born on 06.08.2002. She submitted an application on 15.04.2020 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. Respondent No. 4 issued an endorsement dated 13.05.2020 calling upon the petitioner to produce the original documents. 3.1 Subsequently, the Government of Karnataka issued a Notification dated 09.04.2021 amending the Karnataka Civil - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7513-DB WP No. 20549 of 2025 Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 (for short, “the 1996 Rules”), extending the period to two years in cases where a minor attains the age of 18 years within two years from the date of death of the Government servant, and permitting submission of the application within two years thereafter. 3.2 Thereafter, the petitioner was issued an endorsement dated 23.06.2023 stating that her application could not be considered in view of the amended provision and that she was not eligible under the Rules as they stood on the date of submission of the application. A similar endorsement was issued in response to her representation dated 30.10.2024. 3.3 The Tribunal dismissed the application by applying the pre-amended Rules, observing that the Government servant had died on 25.04.2019 and that the petitioner had not attained majority within one year from the date of death. The Tribunal further held that the Rules in force as on the date of death of the Government servant would govern the case. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7513-DB WP No. 20549 of 2025 4. Sri D.V. Vijaya Simha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Government servant died on 25.04.2019 and that the petitioner was born on 06.08.2002. He contends that the petitioner attained majority on 06.08.2020. It is further submitted that the first application seeking compassionate appointment was filed on 15.04.2020. The amended Rules came into effect on 09.04.2021. Thereafter, a fresh application was submitted on 17.04.2021. Learned counsel submits that, since the petitioner attained majority on 06.08.2020, the application filed on 07.04.2021 is within the time stipulated under Rule 5 of the 1996 Rules. 5. Per contra, Sri Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, submits that if Rule 5 of the 1996 Rules as it stood on the date of death of the Government servant, is applied, the petitioner had not attained majority within one year from the date of death of the Government servant. It is further submitted that the amended Rules came into force only on 09.04.2021 and that the subsequent application dated 17.04.2021 cannot be considered under the amended provisions. Learned Additional Government - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7513-DB WP No. 20549 of 2025 Advocate contends that the Tribunal, having considered these aspects and having applied the Rules as in force on the date of death of the Government servant, has rightly rejected the application. 6. Having considered the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the writ petition papers, we find that the chronology of dates is not in dispute. The Government servant died on 25.04.2019. The petitioner was born on 06.08.2002 and attained majority on 06.08.2020. The first application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds was submitted on 15.04.2020, i.e., prior to the petitioner attaining majority. The amended Rules were notified with effect from 09.04.2021, whereby Rule 5 was amended by extending the period of limitation from one year to two years. 6.1 The petitioner thereafter filed a second application on 17.04.2021. If Rule 5, as it stood prior to the amendment, is applied, the application dated 15.04.2020 was filed within one year from the date of death. During the pendency of the said application, the Rules came to be amended with effect from 09.04.2021. The subsequent application dated 17.04.2021 was - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7513-DB WP No. 20549 of 2025 filed after the amendment came into force. Undoubtedly, the second application conforms to the amended provisions. 6.2 The question that arises for consideration is whether, in a case where the period of one year prescribed under Rule 5 prior to its amendment had expired before the amended Rules came into force, the benefit of the extended period can be extended to the petitioner. 6.3 Before addressing the said issue, it is necessary to bear in mind the object underlying compassionate appointment. Compassionate appointment is intended to enable a dependent of a deceased Government servant to tide over the financial crisis resulting from the sudden demise of the sole breadwinner of the family. In the present case, the application dated 15.04.2020 was pending consideration when the amendment came into effect on 09.04.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a second application in terms of the amended provision. It cannot be said that there was any inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7513-DB WP No. 20549 of 2025 6.4 Having regard to the legislative intent manifested in extending the limitation period from one year to two years, and considering the benevolent object underlying the scheme of compassionate appointment, we are of the view that, in the peculiar facts of the present case, the petitioner’s application requires consideration. 6.5 The Tribunal, while rejecting the application, has not adverted to these aspects. If the petitioner’s application is not directed to be considered under the amended Rules, particularly when the delay is marginal, the very purpose of providing compassionate appointment would stand defeated. 7. Accordingly, the following; Order (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 24.04.2025 in Application No.312/2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, is set aside. (ii) The respondent–authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7513-DB WP No. 20549 of 2025 compassionate grounds, subject to her fulfilling all other requisite conditions in accordance with law. (iii) Time for compliance is three months from the date of this order. (iv) All pending I.As stand disposed of. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15