- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:698 WP No. 104254 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.104254 OF 2022 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SHANKARAGOUDA S/O. LATE LAXMANAGOUDA LAXMANAGOUDRU, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. KALLIYAVAR BUILDING, DANDAPUR, NEAR VETERINARY HOSPITAL, NARGUND-581117, TQ: NARGUND, DIST: GADAG. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., (KPTCL), CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DIRECTOR (ADMN. AND HR) AND THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, KPTCL, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560001. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINNER (ELCL) O AND M CIRCLE, HUBLI ELECTRICAL SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., HESCOM, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580023, DIST: DHARWAD. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELCL.) MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.01.30 10:48:09 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:698 WP No. 104254 of 2022 O AND M DIVISION, HESCOM, RON-582209, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELCL.) O AND M DIVISION, HESCOM, GADAG-582101, TQ: GADAG, DIST: GADAG. 6. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELCL.) O AND M SUB DIVISION, HESCOM, NARGUND-582207, TQ: NARGUND, DIST: GADAG. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P.MUDHOL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. B.S.KAMATE, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED 22.09.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN NO.AA.IM(VI)/U.LE.NI/HISA-1/2022-23/3145- 48 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-Z5; ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 5 TO IMPLEMENT ORDER DATED 16-02-2019 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN NO.AA.IM(VI)/U.LE.NI/HISA-1/2018-19/CYS-1549 AS PER ANNEXURE- W AND ACCORDINGLY TO APPOINT THE PETITIONER TO ANY OF THE SUITABLE POST AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:698 WP No. 104254 of 2022 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the communication dated 22.09.2022 issued by the respondent- Corporation, whereby the petitioner's request arising of the medical incapacity of his father was rejected, and seeking a consequential direction to consider the claim by treating the petitioner's father as having been entitled to retirement on medical invalidation, not withstanding the fact that he continued in service till the age of superannuation. 2. Brief facts: The petitioner's father was employed as a Lineman under respondent-Corporation. On 11.06.2007, he met with an accident while in service suffered serious injuries, resulting in prolonged medical treatment and issuance of several medical certificates and medical board opinions, indicating physical incapacity. The petitioner's father submitted representation seeking to be retired on medical invalidation contending that he is not in a position to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:698 WP No. 104254 of 2022 discharge duties effectively. However, the respondent- Corporation did not accept the request for medical invalidation retirement, and the petitioner's father continued in service ultimately retired on 28.02.2019 on attaining age of superannuation drawing terminal benefits and pension. An order dated 16.02.2019 was initially passed, but the same was later withdrawn by Order No.28.02.2019 followed by a endorsement rejecting the petitioner's claim. Earlier proceedings culminated in WP No.113903-04 of 2019, wherein this Court directed reconsideration of the matter. Upon reconsideration, the respondent issued communication dated 22.09.2022 reiterating that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not pressing a claim for compassionate appointment per se under the scheme dated 23.08.2001. The core grievance is that the petitioner's father was medically unfit to work, and merely because he continued in service, his statutory equitable right to retire on medical - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:698 WP No. 104254 of 2022 invalidation, could not be extinguished. Continuation in service was not voluntary but compelled due to non consideration of representation by the authorities. It is submitted that the petitioner undertakes to refund the terminal benefits and pension received by his father if such refund is required to come up to restore the position as if the father had been retired in medical invalidation. It is submitted that the impugned communication proceeds on an erroneous assumption that superannuation automatically nullifies the right flowing from medical incapacity. Further, that the respondents/authority failed to apply their mind to medical records and medical board opinions, rendering the impugned action arbitrary and violating Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/KPTCL submits that the petitioner's father admittedly continued in service till superannuation, retired with full benefits. Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and arises only when the employee is retired - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:698 WP No. 104254 of 2022 on medical invalidation. The claim is barred by delay and latches, as the accident occurred in 2007 whereas, the claim was pursued belatedly. The applicable notification and circulars do not permit medical invalidation, retired once the employee has completed service and superannuated. The impugned communications are inconsonance with the Rules and binding precedent. 5. This Court has carefully considered the contentions urged and perused the material on record. 6. Mere continuation in service, cannot, in law, be treated as a conclusive proof of medical fitness. An employee may continue to work due to economic necessity or administrative inaction, which cannot be used to defeat a legitimate claim based on medical incapacity. The right to be considered for retirement on invalidation falls from service jurisprudence and medical assessment. It is conceptually distinct from a claim for compassionate appointment. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:698 WP No. 104254 of 2022 7. The petitioner has clearly disclaimed any immediate claim for compassionate appointment and has confined his relief to reconsideration of medical invalidation. The petitioner’s undertaking to refund terminal benefits remove the principal objection raised by the respondents. Once restitution is offered, the respondents cannot solely rely on the receipt of benefits to non suit the petitioner. The impugned communication proceeds on a rigid interpretation that superannuation bars any claim for medical invalidation. Such an approval overlooks the medical records and earlier direction of this Court to reconsider the matter on merits. The respondent/Corporation, being a statutory state instrumentality, was required to consider the representation in an human, fair and a reasoned manner. The rejection reflects non-application of mind and arbitrariness. 8. For the foregoing reason, this Court pass the following; - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:698 WP No. 104254 of 2022 ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed-in-part. ii. The matter is remitted to respondent No.3/Corporation for reconsideration of the petitioner's claim afresh strictly limited to the question as to whether the petitioner's father was entitled to be retired on the ground of medical incapacitation. iii. While undertaking such reconsideration, the respondent No.3 shall not be influenced by the fact that the employee continued in service till the age of superannuation, and shall examine the claim with reference to the regulations by statutory framework prevailing as on the date of the incident as well as on the date of the first application submitted by the employee. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:698 WP No. 104254 of 2022 iv. The respondent No.3 shall pass a reasoned and a speaking order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order after affording sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. v. It is made clear that all the contentions of both the parties are kept open and this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA AM/- Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40