Safiya Malik

The High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad, Single Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj issued a directive allowing the appointment of a widow as a Class-D employee on compassionate grounds, notwithstanding the prescribed upper age limit. The Court held that the rejection of the petitioner’s application solely based on age was not in accordance with the principles of social justice. It quashed the endorsements issued by the authorities that had denied the appointment and directed the respondent corporation to provide employment to the petitioner. The Court further requested the managing authority of the transport corporation to frame a humane policy addressing such circumstances where dependents of deceased employees are left without any means of livelihood.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking relief after her request for compassionate appointment was rejected by the respondents. The petitioner’s husband, employed as a controller with the transport corporation, passed away on 25 June 2021 while still in service. Following his demise, the petitioner, being his widow, applied for appointment on compassionate grounds as a Class-D employee. The application was made on the basis that the petitioner possessed the minimum educational qualification required for such a post.

Also Read: Offences Connected To S.172–188 IPC Cannot Be Split To Bypass Bar Under S.195 CrPC | Supreme Court Explains Principles, Clarifies Scope Of ‘Obstruction’

The respondents rejected the application through a series of endorsements, namely No. VAAKARASAA/GAVI/SIBBANDI/NEMAKA/514 dated 18 June 2022, No. VAAKARASAA/GAVI/SIBBANDI/NEMAKA/2340 dated 9 December 2022, and No. VAAKARASAA/GAVI/SIBBANDI/NEMAKA/2440 dated 23 November 2023. These endorsements stated that the petitioner had crossed the upper age limit prescribed for compassionate appointment. The age limit, according to the respondents, was 40 years for candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste category, extendable by five years to 45 years. The petitioner was 45 years and 7 months old at the time of her application and therefore declared ineligible.

The petitioner challenged these endorsements before the Court, submitting that she was the sole dependent of the deceased employee and had no children or family members to support her. Her counsel argued that the strict reliance on age criteria, despite the petitioner’s unique circumstances, was unjust and deprived her of livelihood.

On the other hand, the counsel representing the transport corporation contended that the rejection was lawful as the petitioner exceeded even the relaxed upper age limit of 45 years. It was submitted that the corporation’s rules clearly stipulated age as a determining factor, and as such, the endorsements were in compliance with policy.

The Court heard the arguments from both sides. The petitioner was represented by Advocate Hemanthkumar L. Havaragi, while the respondents, including the State and the transport corporation, were represented by High Court Government Pleader P.N. Hatti for the State and Advocate Prashant Hosamani for the corporation and its officials. The matter came before the Court for preliminary hearing.

The dispute centered entirely on the petitioner’s entitlement to compassionate appointment and whether the rejection of her application solely on the ground of having crossed the prescribed age limit was valid in law. The petitioner contended that denial under such circumstances contradicted the very purpose of compassionate appointment, which is to alleviate hardship caused to dependents following the death of an employee in service.

The Court recorded its observations after hearing both sides. It noted: “This is one more sad case of denial of compassionate appointment on the ground that the widow of the employer in this case… has crossed the upper age limit mandated by the employer.” The Court proceeded to describe the purpose of compassionate appointment as being “to ensure that the livelihood of the dependents of the deceased employee continues without any hardship, without any problem and offers security to an employee of the employer that even after his expiry, his dependents would be taken care of by the employer.”

It was further stated that “in the present case, admittedly the petitioner is the wife of the employee who has expired in harness and she does not have any children who can look after her.” The Court considered the submissions of the respondents regarding the prescribed upper age limit and relaxation for Scheduled Caste category but observed: “Though the submission… is that the upper age limit has been crossed, the same would have to be humanely considered by taking into account the surrounding circumstances.”

The Court recorded that if the deceased employee had children, they might have been within the prescribed age limit and eligible for compassionate appointment. In the absence of such dependents, the widow herself was the only eligible candidate, despite being marginally over the age limit. It noted: “This is a case where the widow has crossed the upper age limit prescribed by the respondents and she has no one to look after her.”

Justice Suraj Govindaraj further observed that “such a strict implementation of the upper age limit would only cause injustice and would not be in the interest of social justice which is required to be advanced by an authority under the State.” The Court stated that humanitarian considerations must be applied in cases where dependents are left without any form of support following the death of a government employee.

The Court concluded that the respondents’ rejection of the petitioner’s application was not humane and had “in fact caused injustice to the widow of a deceased employee of the Road Transport Corporation.” It therefore held that intervention was necessary to correct the denial of compassionate appointment.

Also Read: P&H High Court Grants Bail | Question Raised on Applicability of SC/ST Act Where Accused Himself Belongs to Deprived Scheduled Caste

Having considered the matter, the Court issued its order allowing the writ petition. It stated: “Writ petition is allowed.” The Court further directed that “a certiorari is issued. The impugned endorsements dated 18.06.2022, 09.12.2022 and 23.11.2023 issued by respondent No.4 at Annexures-F, G and H are quashed.”

The Court then directed: “Respondent No.4 is directed to appoint the petitioner as a ‘D-group employee’ with respondent No.5 without reference to the upper age limit as per the usual terms of service conditions applicable to a class-D employee in respondent No.2.”

In addition to granting relief to the petitioner, the Court made further observations concerning policy. It recorded: “The Managing Director of respondent No.2/Road Transport Corporation is also requested to look into these kinds of matters to formulate an appropriate humane policy, which would be in the best interest of the employees and their family members in the event of the employee expiring during the course of employment.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Sri Hemanthkumar L. Havaragi, Advocate

For the Respondents: Sri P.N. Hatti, High Court Government Pleader for the State; Sri Prashant Hosamani, Advocate 

Case Title: Smt. Lakshmavva W/o. Ramanna Goshellanavar v. State of Karnataka & Others

Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC-D:10273

Case Number: Writ Petition No.102208 of 2025

Bench: Justice Suraj Govindaraj