- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18561 WP No. 10476 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 10476 OF 2026 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. KUMARI. ROOPA. M D/O LATE MAHADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 2. SMT. MAHADEVAMMA D/O LATE MAHADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, BOTH ARE PERMANENT RESIDENTS OF NO. 73/1, OLD VYSYA BANK ROAD, SUSHEELAMMA COLONY, WARD NO. 6, T. NARASIPURA TOWN AND TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT- 571124 NOW RESIDING AT B-602, ATLANTIS LIBERTY SQUARE APARTMENT, NEAR KSIT ENGINEERING COLLEGE, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU- 560062 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B V ANANDA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18561 WP No. 10476 of 2026 VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU- 560001 2. THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE, 2ND FLOOR, T.T.M.C A BLOCK, BMTC BUILDING, BENGALURU- 560027 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ORDER / ENDORSEMENT PRODUCED AT ANNX-G DATED 02.02.2026 PASSED BY THE R2 BEARING NO. EXCISE 15029/19/2025., AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition petitioners seeks the following reliefs. "a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other order quashing the order/endorsement produced at Annexure G dated 02/02/2026 passed by the respondent No.2 bearing No Excise 15029/19/2025. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18561 WP No. 10476 of 2026 b. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other order directing the respondents to reconsider the application of the petitioner and appoint her on compassionate ground. c. Grant such any other reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fit in the circumstances of the case, thus allow thus writ petition in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that under identical circumstances in relation to the prescribed age limit for the purpose of compassionate appointment, the coordinate Bench of this court in the case of Saroja Vs. Managing Director1 allowed the said petition and quashing the endorsement issued therein and remitted the matter back to the respondents for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. 3. It is therefore submitted that the present petition also deserves to be allowed by quashing the impugned endorsement and remitting the matter back to the respondent No.2 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law bearing in mind the judgment of this court in Saroj's case supra. 1 In WP.No.106296/2025 dated 14.10.2025 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18561 WP No. 10476 of 2026 4. Per contra, learned AGA submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. In Saroj's case supra, this Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held as under. "ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question, an order / endorsement dated 17.01.2025 declining to extend the benefit of compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the score that the petitioner has become a widow after the cut off age in terms of the scheme for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. 2. Heard the learned counsel Shri Girish V.Bhat appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel Shri Prashant Hosamani appearing for the respondents. 3. The facts in brief germane are as follows. The husband of the petitioner, who was working as a Driver cum Conductor in the respondent – Corporation, from 04.04.2006 dies in harness on 27.09.2023. Immediately after the death of the sole breadwinner of the family, the petitioner - widow of the deceased, files an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The said claim comes to be rejected by the impugned endorsement dated 17.01.2025, on the ground that the age of the petitioner is beyond 43 years, as she was 47 years at the time when she becomes a widow. After - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18561 WP No. 10476 of 2026 the said rejection, the petitioner submits a representation explaining the financial condition of the family. It is this endorsement that is called in question in the case at hand. 4. Learned counsel Shri Girish V.Bhat appearing for the petitioner would submit that the scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds, though restricts the age at 43, the object of compassionate appointment is given a go-bye, as one has to become a widow before 43 years, if the scheme is to be taken stricto sensu. Learned counsel would submit that in identical circumstances, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has considered this very scheme and held that merely because the applicant has crossed the age of 43 years, the appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be turned down and has directed the Corporation to frame a policy, humane in nature. 5. Learned counsel Shri Prashanth Hosamani representing the Corporation would vehemently refute the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner contending that these objections may be taken as his oral objections, and would submit that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is wanting to be tossed in appeal and the appeal would be filed in the course of this week. Learned counsel would further contend that the scheme for compassionate appointment is under which the applications are to be considered, while it is an unfortunate circumstance that the petitioner becomes a widow after the age of 43 years, the appointment on compassionate grounds is not an alternate source of recruitment, the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18561 WP No. 10476 of 2026 cut-off age in terms of the scheme is not relaxable at all. Learned counsel would submit that the scheme envisages appointment only upto 38 years of age, and is relaxable upto 5 years. Therefore, if an application has to be considered the age of such applicant should be 43 years and not beyond that. He would seek dismissal of the petition. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts lie in a narrow compass. The husband of the petitioner was working as a Driver cum Conductor who has been appointed on 04.04.2006. He dies in harness on 27.09.2023. The petitioner then submits an application immediately seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, as according to the petitioner, the family was condemned by penury and was driven to impecuniosities, due to the death of the sole breadwinner, of the family. The application comes to be rejected by the following endorsement dated 17.01.2025. The endorsement reads as follows: “F ªÉÄð£À «µÀAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ G¯ÉèÃRPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀAvÉ, ²æêÀÄw, ¸ÀgÉÆÃeÁ UÀuÉñÀgÁªï PÉÆAqÁ¬Ä gÀªÀjUÉ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½¸ÀĪÀzÉãÉAzÀgÉ. ¤ÃªÀÅ ¤ªÀÄä ¥ÀwAiÀiÁzÀ ¢: UÀuÉñÀgÁªÀ £ÁUÉÃAzÀæ PÉÆAqÁ¬Ä, ªÀiÁf ZÁ®PÀ-PÀA-¤ªÁðºÀPÀ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ WÀlPÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 27.09.2023 gÀAzÀÄ DPÁ°PÀ ¤zsÀ£À ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀzÀjAzÀ CªÀgÀ ¤zsÀ£ÀzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¹UÀĪÀ C£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ £ËPÀjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄUÉ ¤ÃqÀĪÀAvÉ PÉÆÃj «¨sÁUÀzÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ: 20.05.2024 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄ£À« ¸À°è¹gÀÄwÛj DzÀgÀAvÉ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ C£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ £ËPÀjAiÀÄ PÀÄjvÀÄ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ ¨sÀzÀævÁ - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18561 WP No. 10476 of 2026 vÀ¤SÉ £Àqɹ ªÀgÀ¢ ¤ÃqÀĪÀAvÉ «¨sÁUÀzÀ ¨sÀzÀævÁ C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀªÀjUÉ ¥ÀvÀæ §gÉAiÀįÁVvÀÄÛ CzÀgÀAvÉ «¨sÁUÀzÀ «.¨sÀ.C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ CzÀgÀAvÉ ¸ÀzÀj ªÀgÀ¢ ºÁUÀÆ ¤ªÀÄä ±Á¯Á zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÁUÀ ¤ªÀÄä d£Àä ¢£ÁAPÀ: 26.02.1977 EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ DzÀÝjAzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÀÄ£À« ¸À°è¹zÀ ¢£ÁAPÀPÉÌ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì 47 ªÀµÀð 02 wAUÀ¼ÀÄ 24 ¢£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀÇtðUÉÆArgÀÄvÀÛzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤ÃªÀÅ PÉlUÉÃj 3© ªÀUÀðPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjgÀĪÀzÀjAzÀ DzÀgÉ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ¥ÀzÀªÀÈAzÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæªÀUÀð- 3© gÀªÀjUÉ 38 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À ªÀAiÉÆëÄw ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹zÀÄÝ «zsÀªÁ ªÀÄÈvÀªÁ®A©vÀjUÉ 05 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À ªÀAiÉÆëÄwAiÀÄ°è ¸Àr°PÉ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀgÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ «zsÀªÁ ªÀÄÈvÀªÁ®A©vÀgÀ ªÀAiÉÆëÄw 43 ªÀµÀð M¼ÀUÉ EgÀ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ DzÀgÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÀÄ£À« ¸À°è¹zÀ ¢£ÁAPÀPÉÌ ¤ªÀÄUÉ 47 ªÀµÀð 02 wAUÀ¼ÀÄ 24 ¢£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀÇtðUÉÆArgÀĪÀzÀjAzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ C£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁwUÉ CºÀðgÁUÀĪÀÅ¢¯Áè, DzÀÝjAzÀ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄPÀ̽UÉ C£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ £ËPÀjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀĪÀAvÉ PÉÆÃj ªÀÄ£À« ¸À°è¹zÀÝ°è ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.” 8. The corporation cites the scheme. The age of the petitioner was 47 years, 2 months and 24 days as on the date of death of the employee. Therefore, the petitioner’s claim is rejected. The petitioner again submits a representation bringing it to the notice of the Corporation, about the condition of the family and the need for compassionate appointment, on account of due to the sudden death of the sole breadwinner of the family. The representation reads as follows: “¤ªÉÃzÀ£É, ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, ªÁAiÀÄĪÀå PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÀ¸ÉÛ ¸ÁjUÉ ¤UÀªÀÄ, PÉÃA¢æAiÀÄ PÀbÉÃj, UÉÆÃPÀįï gÀ¸ÉÛ, ºÀħâ½î, 580 030. ¸ÀªÀÄÄavÀ - ªÀiÁUÀðªÁV ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18561 WP No. 10476 of 2026 «µÀAiÀÄ: ¢|| UÀuÉñÀgÁªï £ÁUÉÃAzÀæ PÉÆAqÁ¬Ä ¨ÁåqïÓ £ÀA. 51 zsÁgÀªÁqÀ WÀlPÀ gÀªÀgÀ ¥Àwß ªÀÄÈvÀ GzÉÆåÃVAiÀÄ£Éßà CªÀ®A©¹zÀÝ ¸ÀgÉÆÃeÁ PÉÆÃA. UÀuÉñÀgÁªï DzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ PÀÄ|| «gÁmï f. PÉÆÃAqÁ¬Ä DzÀ £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ DyðPÀ ¸ÀAPÀµÀÖzÀ°èzÀÄÝ, £ÀªÀÄä fêÀ£À ¤ªÀðºÀuÉAiÀÄ DzÁAiÀÄzÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ GzÉÆåÃVAiÀÄ C£ÀÄPÀA¥À DzsÁjvÀ £ËPÀjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀĪÀAvÉ PÉÆÃj. G¯ÉèÃR: 1. C£ÀÄPÀA¥À DzsÁjvÀ £ËPÀj PÉÆÃj ¸À°è¹zÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄ£À« ¢£ÁAPÀ: 20/05/2024. 2. «¨sÁVÃAiÀÄ ¤AiÀÄAvÀæuÁ¢üPÁj, ªÁ.PÀ.gÀ.¸Á. ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ, zsÁ.UÁæ. «¨sÁUÀ gÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀA.ªÁPÀgÀ¸Á/zsÁUÁæ«/¹§âA¢/C£ÀÄPÀA¥À/¹5/605/2024- 25 ¢.20.06.2024. 3. «¨sÁVÃAiÀÄ ¨sÀzÀævÁ C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ ªÁ.PÀ.gÀ.¸Á. ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ «¨sÁUÀ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ PÀbÉÃj ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀA. ªÁPÀgÀ¸Á/zsÁUÁæ«/¨sÀzÀævÁ/«¨sÀ/156/2024-25. ¢: 24/25-06-2024. 4. C£ÀÄPÀA¥À DzsÁjvÀ £ËPÀj PÀÄjvÀÄ zÁR¯Áw ¸À°è¹zÀ §UÉÎ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 09/10/2024 gÀAzÀÄ «¨sÁVÃAiÀÄ ¨sÀzÀævÁ C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, ªÁ.PÀ.gÀ.¸Á. ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ «¨sÁUÀ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ gÀªÀgÀ°è ¸À°è¹zÀ ªÀÄ£À« ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸À¢æ ªÀiÁ£ÀågÀªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 29/10/2024 gÀAzÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀ ¹éÃPÀÈw. 5. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 29/10/2024 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀzÀ¸Àå PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÀÄ, f¯Áè DgÉÆÃUÀå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀÄlÄA§ ¸ÉÆøÉÊn, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ gÀªÀgÀ°è ¸À°è¹zÀ Cfð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÀgÀAvÉ ¸À¢æ ªÀiÁ£ÀågÀªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ. 6. «¨sÁVÃAiÀÄ ¤AiÀÄAvÀæuÁ¢üPÁj, ªÁ.PÀ.gÀ.¸Á. ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ, zsÁ.UÁæ. «¨sÁUÀ gÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀA. ªÁPÀgÀ¸Á/zsÁUÁæ«/¨sÀzÀævÁ/¹§âA¢/ C£ÀÄPÀA¥À/¹5/256/2024-25 ¢: 17/01/2025. F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ vÀªÀÄä°è «£ÀAw¸ÀĪÀÅzÉ£ÉAzÀgÉ, ªÀÄÈvÀ: UÀuÉñÀgÁªï vÀAzÉ £ÁUÉÃAzÀæ PÉÆAqÁ¬Ä ¨ÁåqïÓ £ÀA. 51 zsÁgÀªÁqÀ WÀlPÀ EªÀgÀ£Éßà CªÀ®A©¹zÀÝ GzÉÆåÃVAiÀÄ - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18561 WP No. 10476 of 2026 ¥Àwß ¸ÀgÉÆÃeÁ PÉÆÃA. UÀuÉñÀgÁªï DzÀ £Á£ÀÄ, C£ÀÄPÀA¥À DzsÁjvÀ GzÉÆåÃUÀ ¥ÀÇgÉʸÀ®Ä PÉÆÃj G¯ÉèÃR 01 gÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ£ÀågÀªÀgÀ°è «£ÀAw¹PÉÆArzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. G¯ÉèÃR 01 gÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ, «¨sÁVÃAiÀÄ ¤AiÀÄAvÀæuÁ¢üPÁj, ªÁ.PÀ.gÀ.¸Á. ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ «¨sÁUÀ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ gÀªÀgÀ G¯ÉèÃR 02 gÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è £À£Àß ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£ÀÄß «¨sÁUÀzÀ C£ÀÄPÀA¥À DzsÁgÀzÀ £ËPÀj ªÀjõÀ×vÁ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°èj¹zÁÝV ¸ÀÆa¹zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. G¯ÉèÃR 01 gÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ «¨sÁVÃAiÀÄ ¨sÀzÀævÁ C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, ªÁ.PÀ.gÀ.¸Á. ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ «¨sÁUÀ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ G¯ÉèÃR 03 gÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è C£ÀÄPÀA¥À DzsÁjvÀ £ËPÀj ¸À®ÄªÁV ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ªÀiÁ£ÀågÀªÀgÀÄ G¯ÉèÃR 03 gÀ°è ¸ÀÆa¹zÀÝ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß G¯ÉèÃR 04 gÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀAvÉ «¨sÁVÃAiÀÄ ¨sÀzÀævÁ C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, ªÁ.PÀ.gÀ.¸Á. ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ «¨sÁUÀ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ gÀªÀgÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ: 09/10/2024 gÀAzÀÄ ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ, £À£Àß ªÀÄ£À« ºÁUÀÆ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã®£ÉUÉ PÁ¬ÄÝj¹PÉÆArzÁÝV ªÀiÁ£ÀågÀªÀgÀÄ w½¹ ¹éÃPÀÈwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÁ¬ÄÝj¹zÀgÀÄ. zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹zÀ 15 ¢ªÀ¸ÀUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¸À°è¹zÀÝ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ ¹ÜwAiÀÄ PÀÄjvÀÄ ¥ÀÄ£ÀB «¨sÁVÃAiÀÄ ¨sÀzÀævÁ C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀ PÀbÉÃjUÉ ºÉÆÃV PÉüÀ¯ÁV, «¨sÁVÃAiÀÄ ¨sÀzÀævÁ C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, '£Á£ÀÄ F »AzÉ £ÁåµÀ£À¯ï ºÉ¯ïÛ «ÄµÀ£ï gÀrAiÀÄ°è UÀÄwÛUÉ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É £ÀUÀgÀ ¥ÁæxÀ«ÄPÀ DgÉÆÃUÀå PÉÃAzÀæ ¥ÀÅgÉÆûvï £ÀUÀgÀ zsÁgÀªÁqÀzÀ°è ¸ÁÖ¥sï £À¸ïð DV PÉ®¸À 1 ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, DzÀgÉ, ¸ÀzÀgï PÉ®¸À¢AzÀ ©qÀÄUÀqÉ ºÉÆA¢zÀÝ §UÉÎ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÁV' ¸ÀÆa¹zÀÄÝ, D ªÉÃ¼É ªÀiÁ£Àå C¢üPÁjgÀªÀgÀ°è "£Á£ÀÄ ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ PÉ®¸ÀªÀÅ SÁ¸ÀV UÀÄwÛUÉ DzsÁgÀzÀ°ègÀÄvÀÛzÉ CAvÁ ºÉýzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¸À¢æ ªÀiÁ£ÀågÀªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀiÁvÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¸ÀzÉÃ, ¸ÀzÀgï ¸ÁÖ¥sï £À¸ïð PÉ®¸À¢AzÀ ©qÀÄUÀqÉ ºÉÆA¢zÀ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ ºÁdgÀ¥Àr¹zÀÝ°è ªÀiÁvÀæªÉà £À£Àß C£ÀÄPÀA¥À DzsÁjvÀ £ËPÀj CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ²¥sÁgÀ¸ÀÄì ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÁV" ¸ÀÆa¹zÀÝjAzÀ, G¯ÉèÃR 05 gÀAvÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 29/10/2024 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀzÀ¸Àå PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÀÄ, f¯Áè DgÉÆÃUÀå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀÄlÄA§ - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18561 WP No. 10476 of 2026 ¸ÉÆøÉÊn, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ gÀªÀgÀ°è Cfð ¸À°è¹, ¸À¢æ UÀÄwÛUÉ DzsÁgÀzÀ ¸ÁÖ¥sï £À¸ïð PÉ®¸À¢AzÀ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ©qÀÄUÀqÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀAvÉ PÉÆÃjPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, CzÀgÀAvÉ £À£ÀUÉ ¥ÀÇgÉʹzÀ ©qÀÄUÀqÉ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄvÀAzÀÄ «¨sÁVÃAiÀÄ ¨sÀzÀævÁ C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, ªÁ.PÀ.gÀ.¸Á. ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ «¨sÁUÀ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ gÀªÀgÀ°è ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ. D£ÀAvÀgÀzÀ°èAiÉÄà ªÀiÁ£Àå «¨sÁVÃAiÀÄ ¨sÀzÀævÁ C¢üðPÀëPÀgÀÄ, ªÁ.PÀ.gÀ.¸Á. ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ «¨sÁUÀ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 29/10/2024 gÀAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ F »AzÉ ¤ÃrzÀÝ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¹éÃPÀj¹zÁÝV ¹éÃPÀÈwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÀgÀÄ. DzÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ «¨sÁVÃAiÀÄ ¨sÀzÀævÁ C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, ªÁ.PÀ.gÀ.¸Á. ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ «¨sÁUÀ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß C£ÀÄPÀA¥À DzsÁjvÀ £ËPÀj CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ: 30/11/2024 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå «¨sÁVÃAiÀÄ ¤AiÀÄAvÀæuÁ¢üPÁj, ªÁ.PÀ.gÀ.¸Á.¸ÀA. zsÁgÀªÁqÀ (UÁæ) «¨sÁUÀ gÀªÀgÀ°è ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ, ¸À¢æ CfðAiÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã®£É §½PÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå «¨sÁVÃAiÀÄ ¤AiÀÄAvÀæuÁ¢üPÁj, ªÁ.PÀ.gÀ.¸Á.¸ÀA. zsÁgÀªÁqÀ (UÁæ) «¨sÁUÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀ G¯ÉèÃR 06 gÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è "GzÉÆåÃVAiÀÄ ¥ÀwßAiÀiÁzÀ £À£Àß ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì 47 ªÀµÀð 02 wAUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀÇtðUÉÆArzÀÄÝ, C£ÀÄPÀA¥À DzsÁgÀzÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁwUÉ CºÀðgÁUÀĪÀÅ¢¯Áè" CAvÁ »A§gÀºÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. »ÃVgÀÄvÀÛ, F PÀÄjvÀÄ UËgÀªÁ¤évÀ ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÁzÀ vÀªÀÄä°è £Á£ÀÄ ¨sÉÃnAiÀiÁV ¸ÀªÀĸÉåAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ªÉâ¹PÉÆAqÀ ªÉüÉ, vÁªÀÅ £À£ÀUÉ PÀgÀÄuÉ vÉÆÃj, ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ¤ªÁðºÀPÀ ºÀÄzÉÝ ¤ªÀð»¸ÀĪÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀgÉ, £À£Àß zÉÊ»PÀ ¹ÜwAiÀÄÄ CwÃAiÀiÁzÀ ¸ÁjUÉ ¥ÀæAiÀiÁtPÉÌ ºÉÆA¢PÉAiÀiÁUÀzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 13 ªÀµÀð ªÀAiÉÆêÀiÁ£ÀzÀ £À£Àß M§â£Éà ªÀÄUÀ «gÁl f. PÉÆAqÁ¬Ä EvÀ£À ¨sÀ«µÀåzÀ zÉÃRgÉÃR £ÉÆÃrPÉƼÀÄîªÀ dªÁ¨ÁÝj £À£Àß M§â¼À ªÉÄïÉAiÉÄà EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ zÀAiÀĪÀiÁr £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è ¸ÉPÀÆåjn PÀvÀðªÀå CxÀªÁ PÉèjPÀ¯ï ¸ÀA§A¢üvÀ PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ ¥ÀjUÀt¸À®Ä zÀAiÀiÁ¼ÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ vÀªÀÄä®è «£ÀAw¹PÉƼÀÄîvÉÛãÉ. £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ¢।। UÀuÉñÀgÁªï £ÁUÉÃAzÀæ PÉÆAqÁ¬Ä ¨ÁåqïÓ £ÀA. 51 zsÁgÀªÁqÀ WÀlPÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀlÄÖ FUÁUÀ¯Éà MAzÀƪÀgÉ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀ¼É¢zÀÄÝ, GzÉÆåÃVAiÀÄ£Éßà CªÀ®A©¹zÀÝ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18561 WP No. 10476 of 2026 AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà DzÁAiÀÄ«®èzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ £ÀªÀÄä DyðPÀ ¥Àj¹Üw ºÀzÀUÉqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, CzÀµÀÄÖ ¨ÉÃUÀ£Éà ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è ¸ÉPÀÆåjn CxÀªÁ PÀèjPÀ¯ï ¸ÀA§A¢üvÀ £ËPÀjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄAdÆj¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ zÀAiÀiÁ¼ÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ vÀªÀÄä°è PÀ¼ÀPÀ½AiÀÄ ¥ÁæxÀð£É.” 9. This is also met by another endorsement, of the same kind, depicting that the compassionate appointment cannot be granted as the petitioner was 47 years, 2 months and 24 days, as on the date of death of the sole breadwinner of the family. The aforesaid endorsements have driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 10.In an identical circumstance, the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court interpreting this very scheme in W.P. No.102208 of 2025, disposed on 14th August 2025, has held as follows: 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: A. A writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned endorsements bearing no. VAAKARASAA/ GAVI/ SIBBANDI/ NEMAKA/ 514 dated 18/06/2022, no. VAAKARASAA/ GAVI/ SIBBANDI/ NEMAKA/2340 dated 09/12/2022 and no. VAAKARASAA/ GAVI/SIBBANDI/NEMAKA /2440 dated 23/11/2023, issued by the respondent no.4, Annexures-F, G and H respectively. B. A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.4 to appoint the petitioner as ‘D’ group employee in the 5th respondent office on compensatory ground, in the interest of justice and equity. C. Issue any other writ or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18561 WP No. 10476 of 2026 2.The petitioner’s husband namely Shri Ramanna Goshellanavar, had been employed by respondent No.2/Road Transport Corporation and he was working as a controller at respondent No.5/Depot Manager expired on 25.06.2021 and it is in that background that the petitioner being his wife had applied for being appointed on a compassionate basis in Class-D on account of her education qualification only satisfying the requirement of such a post. 3.The said application came to be rejected by the respondents on the ground that she had crossed the age of 45 years and as such, was not eligible for being appointed on a compassionate basis. It is challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 4.The submission of Shri Hemanthkumar L.Havaragi., learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the wife of the deceased employee of respondent No.2/Road Transport Corporation, they do not have any children and there is no one else who can take care of her and in that background, her livelihood being affected, she is required to be appointed on a compassionate basis. 5.Shri Prashant Hosamani., learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 submits that, insofar as a person belonging to Scheduled Caste category, the upper age limit for being appointed is 40 years, which has been now relaxed by a period of 5 more years, and in the event of the applicant for compassionate appointment being aged within 45 years, the same would have been considered in case of a person belonging to Scheduled Caste category like that of the petitioner. But since the petitioner as on the date of the application made was 45 years 7 months she did not qualify even for the relaxation. He therefore submitted that the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18561 WP No. 10476 of 2026 6.impugned order passed is proper and correct and there is no interference required at the hands of this Court. 6. Heard Shri Hemanthkumar L.Havaragi., learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri P.N.Hatti., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and Shri Prashant Hosamani., learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5. 7.This is one more sad case of denial of compassionate appointment on the ground that the widow of the employer in this case, respondent No.2/the Road Transport Corporation, has crossed the upper age limit mandated by the employer. The purpose of appointing a person on a compassionate basis is to ensure that the livelihood of the dependants of the deceased employee continues without any hardship, without any problem and offers security to an employee of the employer that even after his expiry, hisdependents would be taken care of by the employer. 8. In the present case, admittedly the petitioner is the wife of the employee who has expired in harness and she does not have any children who can look after her. Though the submission of Shri Prashant Hosamani, learned counsel for respondent No.2 to 5 is that the upper age limit has been crossed, the same would have to be humanely considered by taking into account the surrounding circumstances. In the event of the deceased employee and the petitioner having anychildren, since they would have been within 45 years they would have qualified for appointment on a compassionate basis. 9. This is a case where the widow has crossed the upper age limit prescribed by the respondents and she has no one to look after her. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18561 WP No. 10476 of 2026 10. In such cases, such a strict implementation of the upper age limit would only cause injustice and would not be in the interest of social justice which is required to be advanced by an authority under the State. In that view of the matter, taking into account the special circumstances, namely that the petitioner is a widow who has no one to look after her, I am the considered opinion that the order which has been passed by the respondents is not humane and has in fact caused injustice to the widow of a deceased employee of the Road Transport Corporation. As such, I pass the following: ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed. ii. A certiorari is issued. The impugned endorsements dated 18.06.2022, 09.12.2022 and 23.11.2023 issued by respondent No.4 at Annexures-F, G and H are quashed. iii. Respondent No.4 is directed to appoint the petitioner as a ‘D-group employee’ with respondent No.5 without reference to the upper age limit as per the usual terms of service conditions applicable to a class-D employee in respondent No.2. iv. The Managing Director of respondent No.2/Road Transport Corporation is also requested to look into these kinds of matters to formulate an appropriate humane policy, which would be in the best interest of the employees and their family members in the event of the employee expiring during the course of employment.” 11.The Co-ordinate Bench holds that merely because the age of the applicant, seeking for appointment on - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18561 WP No. 10476 of 2026 compassionate grounds, is beyond 43 years, the appointment cannot be denied, and has directed the appointment to be considered without reference to the upper age limit, and has further directed that cases of this kind need, to be regulated by formulating a humane policy. I am in respectful agreement with what the Co- ordinate Bench has held, but I deem it appropriate to amplify the order. It becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Canara Bank vs. Ajithkumar G.K.2, which considers the entire spectrum of the law regarding compassionate appointment right from Umeshkumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana3 upto State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari4. The Apex Court formulates certain issues and sub- issues. One of the sub-issue formulated is whether on a cut-off age under the scheme, without looking into the circumstances as to when one would need compassionate appointment, the application cannot be rejected. The Apex Court has held as follows: “34. Whether relaxation in age ought to have been granted is the next sub-issue. A contention raised on behalf of the respondent, and which succeeded, was to the effect that since he was overaged only by eight months on the date of death of his father, he should have been granted relaxation of age for which power was conferred by the scheme of 1993. We are conscious that there is substance in the contention on behalf of the respondent that this issue is no longer open to be decided here. The decision initially taken that the respondent was over-aged had been set aside in the first round of litigation and, therefore, 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 290 3 (1994) 4 SCC 138 4 (2025) 5 SCC 712 - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18561 WP No. 10476 of 2026 the principle of res judicata is indeed attracted. 35. However, the point having been argued at some length, our views on interpretation of the scheme of 1993 could be of some worth for courts deciding similar such issue in future. We are in agreement with learned counsel for the appellant that the question of relaxation would arise only when the claimant satisfies the other requirements of the scheme of 1993 for compassionate appointment. What seems to be logical is that no dependant, who otherwise satisfies all criteria for compassionate appointment including suitability, should be told off at the gate solely on the ground of age-bar. If the age of the claimant is found to be within the relaxable limit, discretion is available to be exercised in an appropriate case. Relaxation of age is a step to be taken in the final stages of the entire process and it would arise for consideration provided all other conditions for appointment are satisfied. If in a given case, such as this, that the family of the deceased is not found to be indigent, the first threshold is not crossed and thereby, the process does not progress any further. In such a case, it would be in idle formality to consider whether relaxation of age should be granted. XXXXXXXX 42. While reasoning that the stand of the appellant was unjustified, the coordinate bench had the occasion to consider several decisions of this Court and ultimately held as follows: “19. Insofar as the contention of the appellant Bank that since the respondent's family is getting family pension and also obtained the terminal benefits, in our view, is of no consequence in considering the application for compassionate appointment. Clause 3.2 of the 1993 Scheme says that in case the dependant of the deceased employee to be offered - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18561 WP No. 10476 of 2026 appointment is a minor, the Bank may keep the offer of appointment open till the minor attains the age of majority. This would indicate that granting of terminal benefits is of no consequence because even if terminal benefit is given, if the applicant is a minor, the Bank would keep the appointment open till the minor attains majority. … 22. Considering the scope of the scheme ‘Dying in Harness Scheme 1993’ then in force and the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court rightly directed the appellant Bank to reconsider the claim of the respondent for compassionate appointment in accordance with law and as per the Scheme (1993) then in existence. We do not find any reason warranting interference.” 43. In our considered view, the objectives of the scheme of 1993 and the requirements of disclosure relating to financial condition and the details of liabilities of the deceased employee in the prescribed formats (Annexures I and II, respectively) would leave none in doubt about the intention of the policy makers. Overcoming the immediate financial difficulties on account of sudden stoppage of the main source of income and existence of indigent circumstances necessitating employment to one of the dependants being at the heart of the scheme of 1993, it is difficult, if not impossible, to accept it as a valid proposition of law that grant of terminal benefits cannot be of any consequence since paragraph 3.2 of the scheme of 1993 permits the offer of appointment to be kept open till such time the surviving minor dependant, who is to be offered appointment, attains majority. To our mind, what paragraph 3.2 postulates is that, despite there being indigent circumstances necessitating appointment, the object of compassionate appointment thereunder should not be frustrated for mere absence of an eligible dependant family member. The offer would be kept open for such - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18561 WP No. 10476 of 2026 minor to attain majority, whereafter he would be offered appointment subject to suitability, and once he accepts the appointment, he would be under an obligation to look after the other indigent family members. Although paragraph 3.2 may not be wholly in sync with the objective of overcoming immediate financial difficulties, it has to be seen as a benevolent clause extending the benefit of compassionate appointment even beyond reasonable limits, obviously to cover exceptional cases, for ensuring the right of the family members of the deceased employee to live with human dignity. The idea for incorporation of this clause in the scheme of 1993 cannot be confused with grant/release of terminal benefits. Both operate in different arena and, therefore, we respectfully disagree with the reasoning in paragraph 19 of Canara Bank (supra). 44. As pertinently held in B. Kishore (supra), indigence of the dependants of the deceased employee is the fundamental condition to be satisfied under any scheme for appointment on compassionate ground and that if such indigence is not proved, grant of relief in furtherance of protective discrimination would result in a sort of reservation for the dependents of the employee dying-in- harness, thereby directly conflicting with the ideal of equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Also, judicial decisions abound that in deciding a claim for appointment on compassionate grounds, the financial situation of the deceased employee's family must be assessed. In a situation otherwise, the purpose of the scheme may be undermined; without this evaluation, any dependent of an employee who dies while in service might claim a right to employment as if it is heritable. 45. The ratio decidendi of all these decisions have to be read in harmony to achieve the noble goal of giving succour to the dependants of the employee dying-in- harness, who are genuinely in need, and - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18561 WP No. 10476 of 2026 not with the aim of giving them a post for another post. One has to remember in this connection the caution sounded in Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra) that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more, destitute.” (emphasis supplied) 12.The Apex Court holds that the need for compassionate appointment should be the consideration by any Corporation or the employer while rejecting or accepting the application. No such analysis has been made in the case at hand, as is directed by the Apex Court, in the aforesaid judgment. Therefore, the petition deserves to succeed on the sole score that the Corporation will have to now reconsider the application, of the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate grounds with regard to a relaxable age limit or the extendable age limit, owing to the circumstances that the applicant has narrated, in two of the representations submitted by her. In that light, the petition deserves to succeed albeit in part. 13.For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The endorsements dated 17.01.2025 and 10.05.2025 vide Annexures- H and K respectively issued by respondent No.2 stand quashed. (iii)The matter is remitted back to the hands of the Corporation to reconsider the application of the petitioner seeking - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18561 WP No. 10476 of 2026 appointment on compassionate grounds within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 6. As held by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Saroj's case supra, this Court quashed the impugned endorsements issued therein and remitted the matter back to the concerned respondents for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. 7. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned endorsement at Annexure - G dated 02.02.2026 and remit the matter back to the respondent No.2 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. 8. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned Endorsement at Annexure - G dated 02.02.2026 is set aside. (iii) Remitted the matter back to respondent No. 2 for reconsideration afresh in the light of the principles laid down in WP.No.106296/2025 dated 14.10.2025 in - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18561 WP No. 10476 of 2026 the case of Saroja supra within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20