1

I

N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

D

ATED THIS THE 18

TH

DAY OF MARCH 2026

B

EFORE

T

HE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

AND

T

HE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

WRIT PETITION NO.35294/2025 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

KUM. PRABHAVATHI ADENNAVAR,

D/O BABU ADENNAVAR,

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

R/AT NO.24, 1

ST

MAIN,

RAGHAVENDRA COLONY,

J.B. KAVAL, VIDYARANYAPURA,

BENGALURU - 560 097.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI.M.NAGARAJAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

TO GOVERNMENT,

REVENUE DEPARTMENT,

M.S. BUILDING,

BANGALORE - 560 001.

RESERVED ON : 18.12.2025

PRONOUNCED ON : 18.03.2026

2

2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,

BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,

BENGALURU - 560 001.

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W

SRI.V.SHIVAREDDY, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES

226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER

DATED 14/06/2024 IN A.NO.5233/2023 ON THE FILE

OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE

TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU AND ALLOW THE

A.NO.5233/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND

RESERVED AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT

OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

3

CAV ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

The petitioner has been pursuing her

applications for an appointment on compassionate

grounds on the demise of her brother, Mr. Basavaraj

Adennavar and his wife, Mrs. Vidya, in a road

accident leaving behind Mstr. Chinmayi [the minor].

The petitioner’s recent application with the

Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal [for short,

the Tribunal] is in Application No. 5233/2023, and

the Tribunal has rejected the petitioner’s application

by its order dated 14.06.2024.

2. Mr. Basavaraj Adennavar was working as

a Village Accountant with the office of the Deputy

Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District [the second

respondent]. On 04.07.2017, he and his wife, Mrs.

Vidya, died in a road accident. They are survived by

the petitioner, her father, and the minor who was

only one year old at the time of the accident. The

petitioner’s father filed an application [on 19.07.2017]

4

with the jurisdictional Tahsildar for appointment to

the petitioner on compassionate grounds contending

that [i] he is aged and cannot look after the minor, [ii]

the petitioner, who is specially abled and a spinster,

is the minor’s next natural guardian and she can look

after him, [iii] given the families financial condition,

the petitioner will need a secured employment with

the State Government and [iv] the petitioner has

completed graduation in B.Ed. and she is qualified to

be appointed as a Second Division Assistant.

3. The jurisdictional Tahsildar has forwarded

this application to the second respondent, who by the

Communication dated 04.09.2018, has informed the

petitioner’s father that the request is rejected citing

Rule 3[2] of the Karnataka Civil Services

[Appointment on Compassionate Grounds] Rules,

1996 [the Compassionate Appointment Rules] stating

that a deceased employee’s sister will not be entitled

for appointment on compassionate grounds. The

petitioner has pursued her filial responsibilities

5

towards the minor [as an aunt] in filing an application

in G & WC Case No. 28/2018 for her appointment as

the minor’s guardian under the Guardian and Wards

Act, 1890. The jurisdictional Court has allowed the

application on 19.03.2021.

4. The State Government, on 09.04.2021,

has notified amendment to the Compassionate

Appointment Rules. The significant amendments for

the present purposes are as follows:

• The meaning of a family

contemplated under Rule 2 is widened to

include that a certified guardian of a minor

child who takes care of the minor children

as per the law would be within the

definition of the family if the deceased

Government’s spouse is also no more.

• A certified guardian of the minor

children left behind by the deceased

government employee and his/her spouse

is made eligible for appointment on

compassionate grounds if such certified

guardian resides with the minor children

6

and takes care of them. This change is by

including sub clause [iii] to Rule 3[2].

• The Rule 5 stipulates that every

dependent of the deceased Government

Employee seeking appointment on

compassionate grounds must make an

application within one year from the date

of death of Government employee but in

the case of minor dependants, exception is

made stipulating that the minor should

complete 18 years within two years of the

date of the death of the government

employee and make an application within

two years from the date of completing 18

years.

The petitioner, with these changes in the

Compassionate Appointment Rules, has filed another

application for appointment on compassionate

grounds; the petitioner’s application is dated

18.08.2022.

5. The petitioner has filed an application in

No. 4713/2022 with the Tribunal for directions to the

7

State Government/ the second respondent to

consider her application dated 18.08.2022 and for

directions to these respondents to appoint her on

compassionate grounds. The Tribunal has disposed

of this application on 20.03.2023 directing the State

Government/ the second respondent to consider the

petitioner’s application on merits and in accordance

with law within a certain timeline. The second

respondent has issued the petitioner with the next

Endorsement dated 07.07.2023 informing her that

she cannot claim the benefit under the amended Rule

3[2][iii] of the Compassion Appointment Rules

because the first application for compassionate

appointment is prior to this amendment.

6. The petitioner has filed her next

Application No. 5233/2023 with the Tribunal

challenging this Endorsement dated 07.07.2023

which has resulted in the Tribunal’s impugned order.

The Tribunal following the decision of the Apex Court

in the State of Karnataka v. Bheemesh @

8

Bheemappa

1 has opined that if the petitioner’s

application is considered based on Rule 3[2] as it was

on the date of the demise of Mr. Basavaraj

Addenavvar [04.07.2017] she cannot be permitted to

compassionate appointment.

7. Mr. M Nagarajan, the learned counsel for

the petitioner, while canvassing that the facts and

circumstances of the present case are peculiar and

that this Court must ensure that the minor’s interest

is protected with appointment to the petitioner [who

is a spinster and specially abled], submits that a

Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in N.C

Santosh v. State of Karnataka

2 has categorically

opined that the eligibility to appointment on

compassionate grounds must be tested as against the

rule that was in place as of the date of the

consideration of the application.

1

(2021) 20 SCC 707

2 (2020) 7 SCC 617

9

8. Mr. M Nagarajan underscores that Mr

Basavaraj Addenevvar died on 04.07.2017, but as on

that day Rule 3 of the Compassionate Appointment

Rules did not contemplate appointment on

compassionate ground when both the deceased

employee and the spouse were no more, but this

lacuna is corrected in issuing the notification dated

09.04.2021 stipulating that in a situation where both

the employee and the spouse died but leaving behind

minor children a certified guardian living with them

and taking care of them would be eligible for

appointment on compassionate grounds.

9. Mr. M Nagarajan canvasses that, the

petitioner’s application for appointment on

compassionate grounds, which is filed after the order

dated 19.03.2021 in G&WC No. 28/2018, must be

considered in the light of this change and the

decision of the Apex Court in N.C Santhosh [supra],

and that the Tribunal has overlooked these

10

circumstances in rejecting the petitioner’s

application.

10. Mr. Reuben Jacob, a learned Additional

Advocate General, canvasses the following stating

that his submissions are notwithstanding the

peculiarities and perhaps the genuineness of the

petitioner’s claim for appointment as a Certified

Guardian of the minor [who even as of today is below

10 years].

[A] The State Government vide the notification

dated 09.04.2021 has also amended Rule

5 stipulating that every dependant who

seeks appointment on compassionate

grounds must make an application within

one year from the date of the death of the

employee.

[B] If a dependant minor is the applicant,

then such minor must attain the age of 18

years within two years from the date of the

11

death of the employee and must make an

application within two years thereafter.

[C] The petitioner would not be entitled to

compassionate appointment because, in

terms of this amended Rule 5 [which was

in place as on the date of the petitioner’s

application], the application is beyond one

year from the date of death of Mr.

Basavaraj Adennavar.

11. The petitioner’s grievance with the

Tribunal’s order rejecting the application confirming

the respondent’s decision to refuse compassionate

appointment is examined in the light of the following

facts and the law as enunciated by the Apex Court in

two decisions viz. Bheemesh [supra] and N.C

Santosh. [supra]. Mr. Basavaraj Adennavar has died

in the year 2017, and as of that date the

Compassionate Appointment Rules did not

contemplate appointment to a Certified Guardian of

12

the minor children left behind by a deceased

government employee and his/her spouse, and

therefore, the first application is rejected in the year

2018. The petitioner has pursued her application for

her appointment as a guardian under the Guardian

and Wards Act, 1890, and she is so appointed on

19.03.2021. Even as of this date, the Compassionate

Appointment Rules did not contemplate appointment

to a Certified Guardian. It is only on 09.04.2021 that

these Rules are amended.

12. This amendment on 09.04.2021 indeed

creates eligibility for a Certified Guardian but this

eligibility is in the backdrop of the simultaneous

amendment that the application by a dependant of a

deceased employee must be filed within a year and

the exception to this timeline is to be made in the

case of a minor; and the minor to be eligible for

compassionate appointment must complete 18 years

within two years from the date of death of the

concerned government employee and should make an

13

application within two years from the date of

completing 18 years. The amendment reads as under:

“5. Application for appointment: Every

dependent of a deceased Government Servant,

seeking appointment under these rules shall

make an application within one year from the

date of death of the Government Servant, in

such form, as may be notified by the

Government, from time to time, to the Head of

the Department under whom the deceased

Government Servant was working.

Provided that, in case of a minor he must have

attained the age of eighteen years within two

years from the date of death of the Government

servant and he must make an application

within two years thereafter.”

13. This amendment to the Rule 5, which is by

way of substitution, introduces a difficulty for the

petitioner. If the first part of Rule 5 is made applicable,

the petitioner’s application should have been within

one year from the date of the death of Mr. Basavaraj

Adennavar; and if the second part of Rule 5 is made

applicable, the petitioner’s application should be

within two years as contemplated there under. This

14

Court must opine that, the petitioner’s application

[dated 18.08.2022] cannot be considered because it is

filed five years from the date of death of Mr. Basavaraj

Adennavar.

14. The Apex Court in N.C. Santosh [supra]

is categorical in opining that the norms that prevailed

as on the date of the consideration of the application

must be the decisive factor and not the norm as of

the date of the death of the deceased employee. The

Apex Court in the next decision viz., in Bheemesh

[supra], after referring to its different decisions,

including the decision in N.C. Santosh, has opined

thus.

"18. Keeping the above in mind, if we

critically analyse the way in which this Court

has proceeded to interpret the applicability of a

new or modified Scheme that comes into force

after the death of the employee, we may notice

an interesting feature. In cases where the

benefit under the existing Scheme was taken

away or substituted with a lesser benefit, this

Court directed the application of the new

Scheme. But in cases where the benefits under

15

an existing Scheme were enlarged by a modified

Scheme after the death of the employee, this

Court applied only the Scheme that was in force

on the date of death of the employee. This is

fundamentally due to the fact that

compassionate appointment was always

considered to be an exception to the normal

method of recruitment and perhaps looked down

upon with lesser compassion for the individual

and greater concern for the rule of law."

This Court opines that the dicta is that,

compassionate appointment is an exception to

regular recruitment and there must be greater

emphasis on the rule of law and that the Court’s

must not readily interpret the provisions on

compassionate appointment to extend the benefit of

appointment on such ground. The Apex Court has

also said that the interpretation of the provisions

should depend upon determinate and fixed criteria.

15. In the present circumstances, because

the petitioner’s application is beyond the time limit

prescribed under Rule 5 of the Compassionate

16

Appointment Rules, an exception cannot be made on

the ground that the petitioner is a spinster who is

specially abled and keen to look after the minor [aged

below 10 years even now ]. If these circumstances

prevail, indeterminate factors will be given

preference. Therefore, this Court opines that the

petitioner cannot be extended the benefit of the

amended eligibility and no exception can be taken on

the Tribunal’s impugned order or the respondent’s

decision to refuse her appointment on compassionate

grounds.

Hence, the petition is rejected.

Sd/-

(B M SHYAM PRASAD)

JUDGE

Sd/-

(T.M.NADAF)

JUDGE

nv*