Safiya Malik

The High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad, Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna recently set aside the decision of the Northwestern Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (NWKSRTC) rejecting a widow’s plea for compassionate appointment on the ground that she had crossed the prescribed cut-off age. The Court partly allowed the petition filed by the widow and quashed the endorsements dated January 17, 2025, and May 10, 2025, through which the corporation had declined her request for employment on compassionate grounds. Justice Nagaprasanna directed the corporation to reconsider her application within eight weeks, holding that the assessment must take into account the applicant’s circumstances and the object of providing relief to families of employees who die in service.

The petition concerned the challenge to two endorsements issued by the Northwestern Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation declining compassionate appointment to the petitioner, the widow of an employee who died in harness on 27.09.2023. The deceased had been working as a Driver-cum-Conductor since 04.04.2006. After his death, the petitioner submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment, asserting that the family was left without financial support. The second respondent rejected the request through an endorsement dated 17.01.2025 on the ground that the petitioner was over 43 years of age, the upper age limit prescribed under the corporation’s scheme. Her date of birth was recorded as 26.02.1977, making her 47 years, 2 months, and 24 days at the relevant time.

Also Read: Counsel Must Refrain Once Bench Indicates Its Mind as Continued Insistence Affects Decorum : Supreme Court Deletes Remarks and Cost Against State Election Commission

The petitioner thereafter submitted a detailed representation describing the family’s financial condition and the consequences of the sudden loss of the sole breadwinner. This representation was again rejected by another endorsement dated 10.05.2025, reiterating that her age exceeded the scheme's limit. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of both endorsements and a direction for appointment on compassionate grounds.

The petitioner relied on a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in an identical matter where the Court held that compassionate appointment could not be denied solely based on age exceeding 43 years. The respondents contended that compassionate appointment was not an alternative mode of recruitment and the cut-off age under the scheme was non-relaxable. They also stated that the earlier judgment relied upon by the petitioner was proposed to be challenged in appeal.

The Court examined the rival submissions, the contents of the endorsements, the widow’s representations, and the relevant portions of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K., which dealt with the scope of age relaxation and considerations under compassionate appointment schemes.

The Court recorded that the husband of the petitioner “dies in harness on 27.09.2023” and that the petitioner immediately applied for compassionate appointment as “the family was condemned by penury and was driven to impecuniosities, due to the death of the sole breadwinner.” The Court noted that the corporation rejected the claim solely because the petitioner “was 47 years, 2 months and 24 days as on the date of death of the employee.”

The Court referred to the findings of the Co-ordinate Bench which had held that compassionate appointment cannot be refused only on the basis of age. The Court stated its agreement, observing that merely crossing the age limit “cannot turn down the appointment on compassionate grounds.”

The Court then examined the Supreme Court’s decision in Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K. and reproduced portions of the judgment. The Supreme Court recorded that “no dependant, who otherwise satisfies all criteria for compassionate appointment including suitability, should be told off at the gate solely on the ground of age-bar.” It further stated that “relaxation of age is a step to be taken in the final stages of the entire process” and would be considered only after other conditions are satisfied.

The Supreme Court also observed that paragraph 3.2 of the scheme “should not be confused with grant/release of terminal benefits,” adding that the clause “is a benevolent clause extending the benefit of compassionate appointment even beyond reasonable limits.”

The Court noted the Supreme Court’s statement that “indigence of the dependants of the deceased employee is the fundamental condition to be satisfied,” and that financial condition must be assessed before rejecting any compassionate appointment.

The High Court recorded that in the petitioner’s case “no such analysis has been made… as is directed by the Apex Court.” The Court stated that the corporation must reconsider the petitioner’s claim “with regard to a relaxable age limit or the extendable age limit owing to the circumstances that the applicant has narrated.”

Also Read: Karnataka State Law University’s Fee Hike Circular Quashed for Want of Statutory Authority; Refund Ordered to Students: Karnataka High Court

The Court stated: “The petition is allowed. The endorsements dated 17.01.2025 and 10.05.2025 vide Annexures-H and K respectively issued by respondent No.2 stand quashed. The matter is remitted back to the hands of the Corporation to reconsider the application of the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate grounds within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Petitioner: Sri. Girish V. Bhat, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri. Prashant Hosamani, Advocate

Case Title: Saroja v. Managing Director, NWKRTC & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC-D:13820
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 106296 of 2025
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna