Compassionate Appointment Can't Be Denied For Delay If Plea Was Timely | Karnataka High Court Says Decisions Must Be Made Within 90 Days
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Karnataka at Kalaburagi, Division Bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz and Justice K S Hemalekha has dismissed a writ petition challenging an order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal. The court held that the rejection of a compassionate appointment request as time-barred would not stand in the peculiar circumstances of the case where the widow of the deceased employee had submitted a timely application indicating intent to nominate a dependant. The court directed the State authorities to pass orders on the applicant's request and provide compassionate appointment within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
The matter arose from the death in harness of a Group 'D' employee serving as a Peon in the office of the Tahasildar, Jewargi, on 16 December 2014. Following the death, the widow of the deceased submitted an application on 2 January 2015 seeking pension, retirement benefits, and requesting compassionate appointment for one of her four eligible sons. The application was acknowledged by the Tahasildar, but no further action was taken. Subsequently, the elder brother of the applicant submitted an application on 5 October 2015 for compassionate appointment, which was rejected due to age ineligibility.
On 23 February 2017, the applicant, the second son of the deceased, submitted an application referring to the widow's earlier application, seeking compassionate appointment. This request was rejected by the authorities as time-barred under Rule 5 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, which mandates filing within one year of the death of the employee. The applicant challenged this rejection before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Kalaburagi Bench, which allowed the claim, holding that the widow's 2015 application constituted a valid initial claim.
The State challenged the Tribunal's decision, contending that Rule 5 is mandatory and requires each eligible dependant to apply individually within the stipulated time. The State argued that compassionate appointment is not a right but a concession to be strictly governed by the rules, and allowing delayed applications would undermine the purpose of the limitation period. The applicant, represented through counsel, contended that the widow's timely application clearly expressed intent for compassionate appointment for her sons and that the department failed to guide her regarding technical requirements. The applicant further argued that the family's distress following the employee's death was evident and that the widow's illiteracy and timely action warranted exceptional consideration.
The court recorded that "appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to the general rules of public employment" and is meant to address the immediate financial needs of the family rather than provide an alternative career path. The Bench cited precedents including Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, Canara Bank v. Ajitkumar G.K., N.C. Santosh v. State of Karnataka, and State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari on the principles governing compassionate appointments.
The Bench stated that "requests made after a significant delay are generally not entertained, as the immediacy of the need is considered to have diminished" and that such appointments must be strictly according to the relevant schemes and rules. Referring to Rule 5, the court noted that "each eligible dependant must individually submit such application within this prescribed period" unless the rules provide for relaxation.
However, in the facts of the case, the court observed that the widow's application filed within the one-year period clearly indicated the family's intent to seek compassionate appointment and nominated her sons due to her inability to work. The court stated that "the authorities had opportunity to consider and guide the family" and that the absence of communication to the widow deprived other dependants of the opportunity to comply with the rules. The Bench held that "delay in the subsequent application should not be held against the dependant" when a timely application had already been made by an immediate dependant.
The court further recorded that the death of the Group 'D' employee had caused severe financial distress, meeting the condition under Rule 4 of the Rules, 1996. Referring to Debabrata Tiwari, the court observed that the State has an obligation to provide immediate succour to such families and that delay by authorities in processing claims frustrates the object of the scheme.
In distinguishing the present case from those like Ajitkumar, the Bench noted that the socio-economic background of Group 'C' and 'D' employees required a different consideration. It concluded that there was no error in the Tribunal's decision.
The court dismissed the writ petition and directed that the authorities "pass orders on application of the petitioner dated 23.01.2017 and provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner within 08 weeks from the date of receipt of this order". The Bench further directed that every application for compassionate appointment, whether submitted in the prescribed format or not, must be acknowledged in writing by the competent authority within thirty days of receipt.
The acknowledgment must clearly communicate the status of the application, specify any defects in format or documentation, inform the applicant of the rights of other dependants to apply, and state the applicable limitation period. The court directed that in cases where the applicant is a widow, illiterate, or otherwise disadvantaged, the concerned department must take proactive steps to assist in filing the application in the proper format and guide them regarding the steps required for other dependants to apply.
The Bench ordered that all applications must be decided within a maximum period of ninety days from the date of receipt, and if an application is found not maintainable, a reasoned order must be communicated to the applicant immediately. It was also directed that the State Government frame a uniform Standard Operating Procedure and ensure training of officials handling compassionate appointment matters to prevent procedural lapses, and issue appropriate instructions to all Heads of Departments to ensure adherence to these timelines and requirements.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Sri Malhara Rao K., Additional Advocate General along with Smt. Maya T.R., High Court Government Pleader
For the Respondents: Sri Devaraj Manohar, Advocate
Case Title: State of Karnataka & Another v. Sri Mahaboob Patel
Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC-K:4229-DB
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 202187 of 2023 (S-KAT)
Bench: Justice Mohammad Nawaz, Justice K S Hemalekha
