Karnataka High Court | Brother Eligible for Compassionate Appointment Where Employee’s Spouse Predeceased and No Children Survive
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad, Single Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj delivered an order directing that a rejected application for compassionate appointment be reconsidered. The Court quashed an endorsement dated November 4, 2024, which had denied employment on compassionate grounds, and instructed the respondent corporation to appoint the applicant within twelve weeks. The directive was issued with liberty reserved for the petitioner’s mother to seek cancellation of the appointment if the appointee failed in his responsibility towards her. The Court concluded that the marriage of the deceased employee, whose spouse predeceased him without leaving any children, cannot by itself be a ground for rejection of such an application.
The petitioners approached the High Court seeking quashing of an endorsement dated November 4, 2024, which had rejected their application for compassionate appointment. The petitioners in this matter were the mother and brother of a deceased employee. The deceased, who had been working as a driver with the respondent corporation since March 18, 2008, passed away on September 21, 2023, while still in service. Following his death, an application was submitted by the family members requesting employment for the deceased’s brother on compassionate grounds.
The application was rejected by the respondent corporation through an endorsement dated November 4, 2024. The rejection was premised on the reasoning that since the deceased employee had been married, the claim for compassionate appointment by the brother could not be entertained. The petitioners challenged this decision before the Court.
The petitioners argued that though the deceased had been married, his wife had predeceased him on April 9, 2022. The marriage had left no surviving children. The deceased employee had been providing care and support to his mother and brother during his lifetime. Following his death, the mother and brother were left without a source of financial support. The petitioners contended that in these circumstances, the rejection of compassionate appointment on the sole ground of the deceased’s marital status was untenable.
The respondent corporation, represented by counsel, defended the rejection by referring to the prevailing policy. The corporation argued that under its policy framework, if an employee was married at the time of death, compassionate appointment could only be extended to the spouse or children of the deceased. Consequently, no appointment could be granted to the brother in this situation.
The petitioners relied on the factual situation that the deceased’s spouse had passed away before him and no children were surviving. Thus, the claim was not in violation of the policy’s intent, as no eligible spouse or child was available to claim appointment. The petitioners urged that the policy be applied in a manner that fulfills its underlying objective of providing relief to the family of the deceased employee.
The Court considered the pleadings, arguments of both sides, and the documents on record, including the endorsement issued by the respondent. The key issue framed for determination was whether, in the case of a deceased employee whose spouse had predeceased him and who left behind no children, the corporation could lawfully deny compassionate appointment to other dependent family members such as the brother.
The Court began its analysis by identifying the precise legal issue involved. It noted: “A short question that would arise for consideration in the matter is whether a deceased employee’s spouse were to predecease him, could the Road Transport Corporation even then contend that a compassionate appointment cannot be granted to any other relative of the deceased employee?”
The Court then recorded the object and rationale behind compassionate appointments: “The ambit and purport of appointment on a compassionate basis is to ensure that the family of the deceased employee is taken care of and the exigencies due to the death ought not to result in a financial burden to the family.” The Court observed that the respondent corporation had not denied the principle of compassionate appointment but had restricted its grant based on the marital status of the deceased.
It was noted that the deceased employee’s spouse had predeceased him on April 9, 2022, and that the couple had no children. The Court observed: “The fact remains that the spouse of the deceased employee had predeceased him on 9.4.2022, and they do not have any children who could seek a compassionate appointment.”
The Court stated the living arrangements and dependencies of the petitioners and the deceased employee. It observed: “Petitioner No.1-mother, and Petitioner No.2-brother, are living together, and after the death of the spouse, the deceased employee was taking care of both his mother and brother.” It further noted: “In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that Petitioner No.2, having undertaken to take care of Petitioner No.1, the mother, the application of Petitioner No.2 for appointment on a compassionate basis ought to have been considered by the Respondent in a proper perspective.”
Addressing the key legal issue, the Court categorically held: “If the spouse of the employee had predeceased the employee and there are no children, the mere marriage of the deceased employee cannot be a ground to reject an application for compassionate appointment.”
The Court thus answered the central question of law by clarifying that the marital status of the deceased could not alone serve as a ground for denial, particularly where the spouse had predeceased and no children survived. The judgment rested on the principle that the scheme’s objective was to provide financial support to the bereaved family, and this objective should guide the interpretation and application of compassionate appointment policies.
The Court issued clear and specific directions after allowing the writ petition. It stated: “The Writ Petition is allowed.” The Court then ordered: “A certiorari is issued. The endorsement dated 4.11.2024 bearing No.KA.KA.RA.SABA.VI/SIBBANDI/R-1/2608/2024 at Annexure-D is quashed.” The rejection endorsement was thereby invalidated.
The Court further directed: “Respondent-Corporation is directed to consider the application of Petitioner No.2 and appoint Petitioner No.2 on compassionate grounds to a suitable post as per his qualification within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” This directive placed a binding obligation on the respondent to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner within a specified timeframe.
Additionally, the Court provided a safeguard in favor of the mother, petitioner no.1, in case of default in care by the appointee. It recorded: “Liberty is, however, reserved to Petitioner No.1 to move for cancellation of the above order in the event of Petitioner No.2 not taking care of Petitioner No.1.” This condition reinforced the principle that compassionate appointment serves to support the dependent family members and ensures their welfare.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri. Ravi Hegde, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri. Prakash Hosamani, Advocate
Case Title: Smt. Mantavva and Sri. Sanganna vs. The Divisional Controller, K.K.R.T.C., Ballari Division
Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC-D:10457
Case Number: WP No. 101661 of 2025
Bench: Justice Suraj Govindaraj
