- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1100-DB WP No. 17679 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 17679 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RANJITA D. A., D/O LATE SRI ANANTHA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT YASHONANTHA, 9TH CROSS, V.V. NAGARA, OPP. SUSHANTHI CHURCH, MADDUR-571 428, MANDYA DISTRICT. EMAI ID:YASHODA.YASHU@606 @GMAIL.COM PH:8296649403. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RANGANATHA S. JOIS, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571 401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA) Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1100-DB WP No. 17679 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17/04/2025 MADE IN A.No.5070/2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KSAT, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE- A AND 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 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 17.04.2025 in Application No.5070/2024 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore1 by which the petitioner's challenge to rejection of request for compassionate ground appointment under endorsement dated 28.10.2021, is dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri. Ranganatha S. Jois, for the petitioner through video conferencing and learned Additional Government Advocate2 Sri.V. Shivareddy, for 1 Tribunal 2 AGA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1100-DB WP No. 17679 of 2025 respondent Nos.1 and 2 and perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the father of the petitioner was working as a Civil Head Constable in the Police Department and he died while in service on 14.09.2018. It is stated that the petitioner's mother filed an application on 06.06.2019 seeking compassionate appointment to her married daughter-petitioner herein and the same was rejected by endorsement dated 31.07.2019. It is stated that the said endorsement was the subject matter of Application No.1940/2021 before the Tribunal and Tribunal by order dated 06.07.2021, allowed the application, set aside the endorsement rejecting the request for compassionate appointment directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment if she is otherwise entitled. 4. Subsequently, on reconsideration under endorsement dated 28.10.2021, the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected holding that as on the date of death of the Government servant, there was no provision for appointment of a married daughter on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1100-DB WP No. 17679 of 2025 compassionate ground. The said endorsement was challenged before the Tribunal in the above stated Application No.5070/2024. The Tribunal by impugned order dated 17.04.2025, rejected the petitioner's application holding that as on the date of death of the Government Servant, there was no provision for compassionate appointment of a married daughter. 5. This Court has considered an identical fact situation in W.P. No.15961/2022, disposed of on 23.08.2024. Relevant paragraph Nos.7 and 8 reads as follows: "7. It is true that the dependents of the deceased Government servant cannot claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right. But, the dependents of Government servant could claim compassionate appointment under the existing Scheme or existing Rules relating to compassionate appointment. In the State of Karnataka, compassionate appointment is governed by 1996 Rules. Prior to 2021, under 1996 Rules there was no provision for consideration of the application of dependent married daughter of a deceased Government servant. This Court in the case of SMT.BHUVANESHWARI V. PURANIK VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS3 had held that married daughters not being entitled for compassionate appointment to be unconstitutional. Thereafter, the State Government under Notification dated 09.04.2021 brought amendment to 1996 Rules to expand the definition of dependent of a deceased Government servant to include daughter 3 ILR 2021 KAR 5256 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1100-DB WP No. 17679 of 2025 (unmarried/married/divorced/ widowed) who were depending upon him. The amendment brought to Sub- rule (1) of Rule 2 of 1996 rules reads as follows: “2. Amendment of Rule 2. – In the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said rules), in Rule 2, in sub-rule (1), (1) for clause (a), the following shall be substituted, namely:- "(a) "dependent of a deceased Government Servant" means a member of the family of the deceased Government Servant who was living with and dependent on the deceased Government Servant and who fulfils the conditions specified in the explanation to sub- rule (1) of rule 4." (2) for clause (b), the following shall be substituted, namely:- "(b) "family" for the purpose of these rules,- (i) in the case of the deceased male married Government Servant, his widow, son and daughter (unmarried/married/divorced/widowed) who were dependent upon him and were living with him; (ii) in the case of the deceased female married Government Servant her son, daughter (unmarried/married/divorced/widowed) and widower who were dependent upon her and were living with her; (iii) in the case of the deceased male unmarried Government Servant, his brother or sister who were dependent upon him and were living with him; - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1100-DB WP No. 17679 of 2025 (iv) in the case of the deceased female unmarried Government Servant, her brother or sister who were dependent upon her and were living with her, and (v) in the case of the deceased married Government Servant whose spouse is also no more and who has minor children, the certified guardian of the minor children who is living with them and takes care of the minor children as per the provisions of relevant law.” A reading of the above amendment, it is clear that amendment to 1996 Rules is by way of substitution. 8. 8. Learned Additional Government Advocate placed reliance on the decision of BHEEMESH (supra) to contend that the application for compassionate appointment shall be considered in terms of the Rules that existed as on the date of death of the Government servant and further submitted that in the instant case there was no provision to consider the request of married daughter for compassionate ground appointment as on the date of death of Government servant. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above decision i.e., BHEEMESH (supra) was considering the amendment to 1996 Rules dated 11.07.2012 by which, an unmarried brother of deceased female unmarried Government servant was included within the definition of dependent of deceased Government servant. The amendment brought under Notification dated 11.07.2012 was by way of insertion of additional words and the amendment was not by way of substitution. Where amendment to a Rule or Act is by way of substitution, the amended provision is to be read as if it was there in the statute book from the day, the said Rule or Act came into force. Since in BHEEMESH (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court was considering amendment to 1996 Rules by way of insertion and in that circumstance, it held that the amendment would not be applicable merely because the application for appointment was taken up for consideration after the issuance of the amendment. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in BHEEMESH (supra) would have no - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1100-DB WP No. 17679 of 2025 application to the facts of the present case since the petitioner is seeking benefit of 2021 Amended Rules which is by way of substitution. 6. A Co-ordinate Bench also has taken a similar view in W.P. No.16640/2023 dated 23.08.2024, in which Paragraph No.12 of the said order reads as follows: "12. In the specific facts and circumstances of instant case, we are of the opinion that the finding of the Tribunal that the application in format dated 22.07.2021 was belated, is not justifiable. Further, in view of the fact that this Court in Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranik's case stated supra had specifically found that the provisions in the Rules, 1996 to the effect that married daughters were not eligible to apply for compassionate appointment was bad in law and had struck down the same, the contention that the amendment to the Rules dated 09.04.2021 was prospective would have no bearing on the legal situation since the offending provisions stood struck down by this Court." 7. The above referred decisions would aptly apply to the facts of the present case. By following the above two decisions, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 17.04.2025 in Application No.5070/2024 passed by the Tribunal as well as endorsement bearing No.¸ÀA: ¹§âA¢(1)32/2018-19 dated 28.10.2021 (Annexure-A14) are set aside. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1100-DB WP No. 17679 of 2025 The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in terms of Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 and provide appointment if she is otherwise eligible. Time for compliance is three months from today. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24