- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6132-DB WP No. 23229 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH 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. 23229 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001. 3. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR 563 102. 5. BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6132-DB WP No. 23229 of 2025 AND LITERACY, SRINIVASAPUR TALUK, SRINIVASAPUR, KOLAR 563 135. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA) AND: 1. SRI MURALI MOHAN K.B., AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O LATE BALANJANEYA, R/AT KIRUVARA VILLAGE, J. THIMMASANDRA POST, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR 563 135. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA G GAYATHRI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06/02/2025 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No.4727/2024. 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:6132-DB WP No. 23229 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND) Heard Sri Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional Government Advocate for the petitioners-State and Sri Raghavendra G. Gayathri, learned counsel for caveat-respondent No.1. 2. This writ petition is filed by the State Government impugning the order dated 06.02.2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, “the Tribunal”) in Application No.4727/2024. 3. The brief facts, as stated, are that the father of the applicant, late Balanjaneya, was working as an Assistant Teacher in a Government Kannada Higher Primary School at Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District. The applicant’s father died on 15.01.2015. Late Balanjaneya had two wives namely Smt.Nagarathnamma and Smt. Munirathnamma and five children. The applicant, his mother, and the heirs of Smt.Nagarathnamma (the first wife) submitted applications seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The applicant is the son of the second wife. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6132-DB WP No. 23229 of 2025 3.1 In view of the conflicting claims made by the heirs of late Balanjaneya, an endorsement was issued calling upon the parties to establish succession rights. Accordingly, Smt.Nagarathnamma and her heirs instituted O.S. No.247/2015 for partition, wherein a judgment and decree were passed on 12.10.2017. Aggrieved thereby, the parties preferred RFA No.274/2018 before this Court. During the pendency of the said appeal, the parties entered into a settlement, which was recorded by this Court on 07.12.2022. As per the terms of the settlement, the right to seek appointment on compassionate grounds was allotted to the share of the applicant. 3.2 The applicant’s mother submitted a representation to the Block Education Officer, Srinivasapura, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. In effect, she conveyed her no-objection for granting compassionate appointment to the applicant. Thereafter, the Block Education Officer issued a communication calling upon the applicant to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6132-DB WP No. 23229 of 2025 furnish certain documents, which were duly submitted on 30.11.2023. 3.3 The additional particulars sought were also furnished, including the income certificate issued by the Tahsildar and the unemployment confirmation letter issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, both dated 04.12.2023. A certificate declaring that the applicant’s mother had not re-married was also produced. Further, the affidavit relating to movable and immovable properties, convocation certificate, character certificate, and degree certificate were submitted. However, the petitioner–authorities issued an endorsement rejecting the application on two grounds. Firstly, it was held that as on the date of death of late Balanjaneya, the son of the second wife was not entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds. Secondly, it was held that since the death occurred on 15.01.2015, the application for compassionate appointment made in the year 2024 could not be considered, being beyond the period prescribed under the rules governing compassionate appointment. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6132-DB WP No. 23229 of 2025 4. Challenging the said endorsement, the respondent preferred an application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal noticed that the application had been filed within the prescribed time. It was further observed that an endorsement had been issued earlier requiring resolution of the succession dispute, and that only thereafter the application was to be considered. The Tribunal also noticed that the succession dispute between the parties was resolved in the year 2022 and that, immediately thereafter, a representation was submitted by the applicant. 4.1 Having regard to the settled position of law that no discrimination can be made between the children of the first and second wife, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal set aside the impugned endorsement and directed the authorities to consider the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds, on its own merits. 5. Sri Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the petitioners, submits that appointments on compassionate grounds are governed by the rules and the law prevailing as on the date of death of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6132-DB WP No. 23229 of 2025 Government employee. It is contended that as on 15.01.2015, the applicable rules did not provide for appointment on compassionate grounds to the children of a second wife, and that such entitlement was recognized only by virtue of subsequent judicial pronouncements. According to the learned Additional Government Advocate, those judgments cannot be applied retrospectively. 5.1 Learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that since the death occurred in the year 2015, the application made in the year 2024 could not be considered, being barred by the period prescribed under the rules governing compassionate appointment. It is contended that the Tribunal, without taking the aforesaid aspects into consideration, proceeded to set aside the endorsement. On these grounds, the learned Additional Government Advocate prays that the writ petition be allowed. 6. Per contra, Sri Raghavendra G. Gayathri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent on caveat, submits that immediately after the death of the deceased Government employee, an application seeking appointment on - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6132-DB WP No. 23229 of 2025 compassionate grounds was filed by the applicant. It is submitted that the authorities issued an endorsement calling upon the applicant to produce a succession certificate, which was necessitated on account of the rival claims put forth by the legal heirs of the other wife of the Government employee. 6.1 It is further submitted that the family dispute was ultimately resolved in RFA No.274/2018 on 07.12.2022, and thereafter a representation was made requesting consideration of the application for compassionate appointment in terms of the memorandum of settlement entered into between the parties, who were the rival claimants for appointment on compassionate grounds. Learned counsel contends that since the application was filed within the prescribed time and the endorsement was issued directing the parties to obtain a succession certificate, the delay occasioned thereafter cannot be construed as a bar under the rules governing compassionate appointment. 6.2 Learned counsel further submits that though the judicial pronouncements recognizing the entitlement of children of a second wife were rendered at a later point of time, the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6132-DB WP No. 23229 of 2025 same have retrospective operation and would govern all pending applications. On these grounds, learned counsel prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the writ papers, we notice that late Sri Balanjaneya, while working as an Assistant Teacher in a Government Kannada Higher Primary School at Srinivasapura Taluk, died on 15.01.2015. The deceased Government employee had two wives and five children. Counter applications were submitted by the children of both wives seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The Block Education Officer, Srinivasapura, issued endorsements dated 30.05.2015 and 26.09.2015, produced at Annexures A6 and A7, calling upon the parties to produce a succession certificate. 8. The parties instituted O.S. No.247/2015 for partition, wherein a judgment and decree were passed. Aggrieved thereby, the parties preferred RFA No.274/2018 before this Court. During the pendency of the said appeal, the parties entered into a memorandum of settlement, whereunder - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6132-DB WP No. 23229 of 2025 it was agreed that the right to seek appointment on compassionate grounds would be allotted to the applicant. 8.1 Pursuant thereto, the applicant’s mother submitted a representation to the Block Education Officer, Srinivasapura, requesting consideration of the application in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. There was no subsisting dispute or rival claim with regard to consideration of the applicant’s case for appointment on compassionate grounds. However, upon resolution of the dispute and submission of the representation, the petitioner-authorities issued an endorsement rejecting the application on two grounds: firstly, on the ground of delay; and secondly, on the ground that the children of the second wife were not entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds. 9. The respondent filed an application on 16.05.2015, within four months from the date of death of the Government servant. In view of the counter applications filed by other members of the family, the applicants were directed to produce an inheritance/succession certificate, with a further indication that the application would be considered thereafter. Owing to - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6132-DB WP No. 23229 of 2025 the family dispute, the right to seek appointment on compassionate grounds ultimately stood settled in favour of the respondent by virtue of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 07.12.2022 entered into in RFA No.274/2018. 9.1 The delay in producing the succession certificate, under such circumstances, cannot be construed as delay in filing the application seeking compassionate appointment. We, therefore, find that the application was filed within the prescribed time. Insofar as the other requirements, such as financial hardship and the need for employment to tide over the sudden crisis faced by the family of the deceased, are concerned, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the necessary certificates, including income and unemployment certificates, were produced in support of the claim. 9.2 Insofar as the second ground relating to the eligibility of the son of the second wife is concerned, the Tribunal has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.20302/2024 dated 13.09.2024. The Tribunal has held that there cannot be any discrimination between the children of the first wife and the children of the second wife, - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6132-DB WP No. 23229 of 2025 having regard to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate that the exposition of law, placing the children of the first and second wives on par, having been rendered after the filing of the application, would not operate retrospectively, is difficult to be countenanced. It is well settled that a judicial pronouncement declaring the law applies retrospectively, unless the operation thereof is expressly restricted to prospective effect. 9.3 The Tribunal, in its considered and elaborately reasoned order, has held that the applicant, being the son of the second wife of the deceased Government employee, is eligible to seek appointment on compassionate grounds. The Tribunal has further held that there was no delay in filing the application and that the delay, if any, was only in the consideration of the application, attributable to the directions issued by the authorities themselves. 10. We express our concurrence with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate any substantial or compelling grounds warranting - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6132-DB WP No. 23229 of 2025 interference by this Court. We find no infirmity or error in the order passed by the Tribunal. The impugned order is reasoned, just, and does not call for interference. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Pending I.A's stand disposed of. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SD/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12