Married Daughter Entitled To Compassionate Appointment If She Was Dependent On & Living With Deceased : Karnataka HC

Background Facts

The petitioner's father was employed as a Group-D employee. He was working as a Cook at the Pre-metric ST Boy's Hostel, Challakere Taluk. He died in service on 25.02.2014. Thereafter, his daughter (petitioner) submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment.

At the time of her application, the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 did not contain any provision allowing a married daughter to be considered for such appointment. The petitioner was already married as on the date of her father's death. The respondent authority issued an endorsement rejecting her request for compassionate appointment on two grounds: first, that she is a married daughter, and second, that her mother is a retired Government servant in receipt of pension.

Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed her application. However, the Tribunal acknowledged that a married daughter is entitled to compassionate appointment. Challenging the dismissal order, the petitioner filed the writ petition before the Karnataka High Court.

It was contended by the petitioner that the subsequent amendment was made to the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, which included married daughters for compassionate appointment. Therefore, her case deserved to be considered for compassionate appointment. It was further submitted that her case requires to be examined as to whether the income stated under Rule 4 exceeds to deny compassionate appointment.

On the other hand, it was argued by the respondents that the case of the petitioner was rejected before the amended provision came into force. Hence, the petitioner was not entitled for compassionate appointment. It was further contended that since the mother of the petitioner was a retired Government servant, petitioner was not entitled for compassionate appointment.

Findings and Observations of the Court:

It was observed by the Co-ordinate Bench that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, but eligible dependents of a deceased government servant are entitled to be considered under the applicable compassionate appointment scheme. It was noted that under the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, married daughters were initially excluded from the definition of dependents eligible for compassionate appointment.

In Smt. Bhuvaneshwari v. Puranik v. State of Karnataka and Others, it was held by the Karnataka High Court that excluding married daughters from compassionate appointment was unconstitutional. Consequently, the State amended the 1996 Rules by substituting the existing provisions. The definition of “family” and “dependent” was expanded to include daughters, whether unmarried, married, divorced, or widowed, provided they were dependent on and living with the deceased government servant.

It was further held that the amendment to the Karnataka Civil Services Rules was made by substitution. A substituted provision is treated as having been part of the statute from its inception. It was concluded by the Division Bench that an application for compassionate appointment cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the applicant is a married daughter. Therefore, married daughters are entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment subject to fulfillment of the other eligibility requirements.

It was further held that the respondents could not have rejected the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground that her mother is a retired Government servant and she is in receipt of pension.

Consequently, the order of the Tribunal was set aside. Further, the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition filed by the married daughter was allowed by the Division Bench.

Case Name: Smt. Savitha.R v. State of Karnataka & Others

Case No. : WP No. 3765 of 2022 (S-KSAT)

Counsel for the Petitioner : Virupakshaiah P.H., Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents : Harish A.S, Aga