- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:70 WP No. 107434 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 107434 OF 2024 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN: 1. GANGAMMA W/O. LATE SIDDAPPA CHALAGIRI AGE: 70 YEARS, R/O. ALAMPUR PETE, TQ: ILAKAL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587125. 2. GURUDEVI D/O. SIDDAPPA CHALAGERI AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. ALAMPUR PETE, TQ: ILAKAL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587125. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. C R HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MAANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT HOUSE, CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027. 2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER W.K.R.T.C. HAVERI DIVISIONAL, HAVERI-581110. 3. THE DIVISIONAL SECURITY SUPERINTENDENT W.K.R.T.C., HAVERI DIVISION, HAVERI-581110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRASHANT HOSMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. ROHIT S.PATIL AND SRI. KAMALAKAR M.S., ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.01.08 11:12:49 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:70 WP No. 107434 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT NO.VAKARASA/HAVI/ SIBBANDI/SI6/837/2023-24, DATED 13.07.2024, ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT, AS PER ANNEXURE-A; WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 15.09.2023 AND 10.06.2024, AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND H; WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONER NO.2 FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND BY RELAXING THE UPPER AGE AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner has approached this Court calling in question the endorsement dated 13.07.2024 issued by the second respondent (Annexure-A), whereby the application/representation submitted by petitioner No.2 seeking appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on the ground that she had crossed the upper age limit of 38 years and, therefore, was held to be ineligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:70 WP No. 107434 of 2024 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Corporation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that; 3.1. Petitioner No.2 is the sister of the deceased employee, who died in harness and was employed with the second respondent - Corporation. 3.2. Petitioner No.1, being the mother of the deceased employee, submitted a representation dated 15.09.2023 seeking appointment of her daughter (petitioner No.2) on compassionate ground and, by the said representation, gave her consent. The said request was made strictly in accordance with the circular dated 31.01.2022 issued by the respondent - Corporation. 3.3. Further, that the respondent - Corporation has issued the endorsement, without considering the settled proposition of law that a claim for - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:70 WP No. 107434 of 2024 compassionate appointment cannot be rejected merely on the ground of age, particularly when the dependency and indigent circumstances are not in dispute. 3.4. That the deceased employee was admittedly unmarried and the entire family was dependent upon his income. 3.5. Further, petitioner No.2 being otherwise eligible in all respects for appointment on compassionate grounds, is entitled for appointment and that the rejection of her claim by the respondent - Corporation is arbitrary and contrary to law. 3.6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Saroja v. Managing Director and Others1 (Saroja). 1 Writ Petition No.106296 of 2025, dated 14.10.2025 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:70 WP No. 107434 of 2024 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Corporation submits that the applicable rules governing compassionate appointment prescribe an upper age limit of 38 years and petitioner No.2 being aged about 42 years and 9 months as on the date of consideration, was therefore not eligible for appointment. It is contended that the respondent authority has rightly rejected the claim in accordance with the rules governing compassionate appointment. In support of his contention, learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Pallavi G. M. v. The Managing Director and Others2 (Pallavi). 5. This Court has carefully considered the contentions urged by learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 6. The object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds is intended to mitigate the 2 Writ Appeal No.626 of 2023, dated 07.09.2023 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:70 WP No. 107434 of 2024 immediate financial hardship faced by the family of a deceased employee who dies in harness and to ensure that the dependents are not left without support. Compassionate appointment is therefore a measure rooted in social welfare and social justice and must be considered keeping in mind the circumstances of the bereaved family and with reference to the factual circumstances of each case. 7. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the deceased employee died in harness in the year 2023. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was unmarried. Petitioner No.1, the mother of the deceased employee, submitted a representation seeking compassionate appointment in favour of petitioner No.2, her daughter. The respondent authority, however, rejected the said request solely on the ground of age, without any examination of dependency, financial distress or indigent circumstances of the family. Such a mechanical - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:70 WP No. 107434 of 2024 rejection defeats the very purpose of compassionate appointment. 8. Merely because the dependent has crossed the prescribed age limit at the time of consideration cannot, by itself, be a valid ground to deny compassionate appointment, particularly when the employee died in harness and petitioner No.2 would have been otherwise entitled for compassionate appointment. The timing of the death of an employee, which is beyond the control of the dependents, cannot operate to their detriment. The appointment on compassionate ground is not determined by strict eligibility alone, but by human necessities arising from sudden deprivation. The primary consideration in matters relating to compassionate appointment is whether the applicant was dependent on the deceased employee and whether the family is in financial distress due to the death of the employee. Strict application of age norms, without considering the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:70 WP No. 107434 of 2024 purpose and object of compassionate appointment, defeats the very intent behind the scheme. The impugned endorsement does not reflect any consideration of the dependency of petitioners or the financial condition of the family. The interest of social justice, which the respondent authority is expected to advance, is not seen in the impugned endorsement. 9. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent - Corporation in Pallavi case is clearly distinguishable on facts. In that case, the applicant- sister of the deceased employee had failed to establish dependency on the deceased employee. While in the present case, the issue of dependency has not been examined at all by the respondent authority, and the claim has been rejected solely on the ground of age limit. Therefore, the decision relied upon by the respondent - Corporation in the Pallavi case is clearly distinguishable and does not apply to the facts of the present case. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:70 WP No. 107434 of 2024 10. On the other hand, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Saroja case squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The Coordinate Bench of this Court at para 11 of the judgment has held as under: 11. The Co-ordinate Bench holds that merely because the age of the applicant, seeking for appointment on 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.3, which considers the entire spectrum of the law regarding compassionate appointment right from Umeshkumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana4 upto State of West 3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 290 4 (1994) 4 SCC 138 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:70 WP No. 107434 of 2024 Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari5. 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, the principle of res judicata is indeed attracted. 35. However, the point having been argued at some length, our views on 5 (2025) 5 SCC 712 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:70 WP No. 107434 of 2024 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 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:70 WP No. 107434 of 2024 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 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 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:70 WP No. 107434 of 2024 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, - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:70 WP No. 107434 of 2024 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 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). - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:70 WP No. 107434 of 2024 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 - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:70 WP No. 107434 of 2024 employee dying-in-harness, who are genuinely in need, and 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) 11. The Coordinate Bench, relying upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, has held that the need for compassionate appointment and the financial hardship faced by the family must be the guiding consideration while accepting or rejecting an application for compassionate appointment. The said principle applies with full force to the present case. The consistent principles emerging therefrom is that, no dependent, who otherwise satisfies the conditions of compassionate appointment, should be turned away solely on the ground of age, without examining indigence and dependency. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:70 WP No. 107434 of 2024 12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned endorsement dated 13.07.2024 does not reflect any application of mind to these considerations and therefore cannot be sustained. The matter requires reconsideration by the respondent authority in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made hereinabove. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed in part. ii. The impugned endorsement dated 13.07.2024 issued by the second respondent (Annexure-A) is hereby quashed. iii. The second respondent is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioners afresh, taking into consideration the representations submitted by the petitioners at Annexures-D and H dated 15.09.2023 and 10.06.2024, - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:70 WP No. 107434 of 2024 respectively, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. iv. While reconsidering the matter, the respondent authority shall consider the case of petitioner No.2 for compassionate appointment without reference to the upper age limit, and shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, subject to fulfillment of other eligibility conditions and assessment of dependency and indigent circumstances, in accordance with law. v. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a reasonable period, preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA gab Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37