In a writ petition filed before the Karnataka High Court to challenge an order dated 21-01-2022 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal whereby the petitioner’s challenge to an endorsement dated 12-03-2021, rejecting her request for compassionate appointment was rejected, a Division Bench of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice Rajesh Rai K set aside the impugned order, quashed the endorsement and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner for compassionate appointment within 3 months.
The petitioner’s father was working as a Group-D employee, specifically a Cook at Pre-metric ST Boy’s Hostel, Nelagatenahatti, Challakere Taluk. While in service, he died on 25.02.2014. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted an application on 27.12.2014 requesting compassionate appointment. As on the said date, there was no provision under the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 for the appointment of a married daughter.
The Rules, 1996 were subsequently amended to include the married daughter in the definition of ‘family’ by a notification dated 09.04.2021. Meanwhile, under an endorsement dated 12.03.2021, the petitioner’s case was rejected. Questioning the said endorsement, the petitioner went before the Tribunal and by the impugned order, her prayer was rejected though it came to the conclusion that a married daughter is also entitled for compassionate appointment. Aggrieved, the present petition was filed.
The Court opined that the Tribunal committed a grave error in rejecting the petitioner’s application and that she would be entitled for consideration of her case for compassionate appointment as per the Rules since her father was working on the above mentioned position and she had applied for compassionate appointment within the time limit prescribed.
The Court referred to a judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench wherein it was found that the amendment to the 1996 Rules was by way of substitution. Further, it was held to be clear that by the amendment, even married daughters would be entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. The Court held that the respondents could not have rejected the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment on grounds that her mother was a retired government servant and used to receive pension. It was stated that her case was to be considered as per Rule 4(1)(b), Rule 5, and Rule 6 of the Rules, 1996.
The Court noted that the Tribunal had not stated any reason to conclude that the applicant is not entitled for compassionate appointment and allowed the writ petition while setting aside the impugned order. The endorsement dated 12.03.2021 was quashed and the respondents were directed to consider the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment in the light of the order dated 23.08.2024 passed in a writ petition filed before a Coordinate Bench of this Court insofar as married daughters are concerned and in terms of Rules 4, 5 and 6 of Rules, 1996, within three months.
