WP/28679/2024 of AKSHAY BHARADWAJ J C Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 17 June 2026

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 10.09.2024 passed in Application No.761/2024 by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as, "the Tribunal"), whereby the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for quashing the endorsement issued by the respondent No.2 dated 25.05.2023.

2. The facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner's father, late J.H. Chandrashekara Jois, was serving as a First Division Assistant in the Department of Sericulture and was on deputation to the office of respondent No.4. While in service, he passed away on 21.01.2019. Consequent upon his demise, the petitioner's mother submitted a representation dated 06.02.2019 seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner. The said request came to be rejected by endorsement dated 04.03.2019 on the ground that the petitioner was a minor as on the date of the application. Subsequently, upon attaining majority on 17.01.2021, the petitioner submitted a fresh representation on 28.10.2022 before respondent No.2 seeking appointment on

HC-KAR

compassionate grounds. The said request was again rejected by endorsement dated 26.05.2023. Aggrieved by the rejection of his claim, the petitioner has approached the Tribunal seeking appropriate relief.

3. The Tribunal on assessment of the documents placed before it, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner as stated supra. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court.

4. Heard learned counsel Sri Hiremathad Maheshiah Rudrayya for the appellant and learned counsel Sri. V. Shivareddy, AGA for the respondents.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while advancing several contentions, primarily contended that the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the amended provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 2021, which came into force on 02.02.2021. Drawing the attention of the Court to Rule 6(7) of the amended Rules, it was contended that appointments under the said Rules are required to be considered in accordance with the provisions prevailing on the date of the application. It was

HC-KAR

further submitted that the proviso to Rule 5 specifically provides that, where the dependent applicant is a minor, he must attain the age of eighteen years within two years from the date of death of the Government servant and submit an application within two years thereafter. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner attained majority within the prescribed period and thereafter submitted his application within the time stipulated under the Rules. Therefore, the rejection of his claim was contrary to the amended provisions. It was urged that the Tribunal committed an error in overlooking this material aspect while dismissing the petitioner's claim. On these grounds, learned counsel prayed for allowing the writ petition and for granting the reliefs sought therein.

6. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate by supporting the impugned order, contended that in terms of Rule 5 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 2021 where the dependent member of a deceased Government servant is a minor, such dependent is required to attain the age of majority within one year from the date of death of the employee and thereafter

HC-KAR

submit an application seeking compassionate appointment. It was submitted that, in the instant case, though the petitioner's mother had submitted a representation seeking compassionate appointment in the year 2019, the petitioner himself submitted a fresh application only after a lapse of about one year from attaining eligibility. In the circumstances, respondent No.2 was justified in rejecting the petitioner's claim, and the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the factual and legal position while upholding the said rejection. On these grounds, the learned AGA prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

7. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and so also meticulously perused the documents made available before us.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and upon perusal of the records, the following point arises for our consideration: Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing

the Application filed by the petitioner and upholding the rejection of

HC-KAR

compassionate appointment of the petitioner, despite the undisputed death of the petitioner's father in harness and the subsequent application made after the applicant attained majority?

9. As could be gathered from records, it is evident that the petitioner's father, while serving in Government service, died in harness on 21.01.2019. The petitioner, being the son of the deceased employee, was a minor on the date of his father's demise and attained the age of majority on 17.01.2021. Thereafter, he submitted a representation seeking appointment on compassionate grounds in the year 2022. Thus, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was about 16 years of age as on the date of death of the deceased employee and had not attained majority at the relevant point of time.

10. It is pertinent note that Rule 5 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment of Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 (for short, 'the Rules'), along with the proviso reads as under;

5. Application for appointment:- Every dependent of a deceased Government Servant, seeking appointment under these rules shall

HC-KAR

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 one year from the date of death of the Government servant and he must make an application within one year thereafter.

11. A careful reading of the aforesaid provision makes it abundantly clear that, where the dependent applicant is a minor, he or she must attain the age of eighteen years within one year from the date of death of the Government servant and submit an application seeking compassionate appointment within one year thereafter. Applying the said provision to the facts of the present case, the petitioner was required to attain majority on or before 21.01.2020. However, the petitioner attained the age of majority only on 17.01.2021. Further, the application seeking compassionate appointment was submitted on 28.10.2022. Therefore, the petitioner's claim

HC-KAR

does not satisfy the requirements stipulated under the relevant Rule.

12. In an analogous factual situation, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in W.P. No. 13868/2023, by order dated 14.01.2026, while interpreting the scope and applicability of the said provision, observed in paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2 as follows: "7.1 In the State of Karnataka, appointment on compassionate grounds is governed by 1996 Rules. Rule 3 of the 1996 Rules, makes it clear that appointment on compassionate ground shall not be claimed as a matter of right and shall not be given as a matter of course. Rule 5, which stood on the date of death of father of the petitioner required that a minor must have attained the age of 18 years within one year from the date of death of the Government servant and he must have made an application within one year thereafter. In terms of the said Rule, the petitioner ought to have attained majority within 27.12.2020 and ought to have made an application within one year thereafter. However, the petitioner has not attained majority within 27.12.2020 and he had attained majority only on 30.11.2021 and submitted application thereafter.

HC-KAR

7.2 Admittedly, under Notification dated 09.04.2021, proviso to Rule 5 was amended to say that in the case of minor, he must have attained the age of 18 years within two years from the date of the death of Government servant and he must make an application within two years thereafter. The amended proviso would not come to the aid of the petitioner since his right to make an application for compassionate ground appointment extinguished by the time the amended proviso was substituted. The Tribunal has rightly recorded its reason at paragraph No.6 of its order."

13. The observations made by the Coordinate Bench in the aforesaid case squarely apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. As discussed above, the petitioner did not satisfy the eligibility requirements prescribed under the relevant Rules governing compassionate appointment. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal was fully justified in dismissing the application and upholding the rejection of the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment. Hence, this Court finds no infirmity, illegality, or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

HC-KAR

Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS/V List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13