SHOIB SHAHARPYADE vs THE GENERAL MANAGER KARNATAKA VIKAS
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11745
WP No. 203632 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030092852026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.203632 OF 2026 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SHOIB AKTAR M. SHAHARPYADE
S/O LATE MUNNEER AHMED
AGE 27 YEARS, OCC NIL
R/O WARD NO.31, KWAJA BUILDING
NAVAG ROAD, NEAR TAJ BOUDI
BEHIND SECAB PU COLLEGE
VIJAYAPURA 586101.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NITESH PADIYAL, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER
KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEENA BANK
HEAD OFFICE, BELGUM RD
P.B. NO.111, DHARWAD-580008.
2. THE ASST. GENERAL MANAGER
KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEENA BANK
HEAD OFFICE, BELGUM RD
P.B, NO.111, DHARWAD-580008.
3. THE MANAGER
KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEENA BANK
MAIN BRANCH APTE BUILDING
Digitally signed
by SWETA
KULKARNI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11745
WP No. 203632 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030092852026
MEENAKSHI CHOWK, BIJAPUR
(VIJAPURA) 586101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BASAVAKIRAN G.R. ADV.)
- - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FOR QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE
NO.REF.381/ EPF2006/PHRDD/2022 DATED 26.05.2022 WHICH
IS AT ANNEXURE-A IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the endorsement
dated 26.05.2022 issued by the respondent No.2 at
Annexure-A.
2. Sri.Nitesh Padiyal, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the son of
late Munneer Ahmed who was working as a Driver-cum-
Messenger under the respondent No.3-Bank. It is
submitted that the father of the petitioner died on
31.08.2008. The employee's wife filed an application in
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11745
WP No. 203632 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030092852026
the month of December 2008 as per Annexure-C seeking
appointment on compassionate ground which was not
considered. Thereafter, the petitioner, who is the son of
the deceased employee, filed an application on 15.04.2021
which was erroneously rejected by the Bank under the
impugned endorsement at Annexure-A. It is further
submitted that the said rejection is on incorrect premise as
the endorsement indicates that for the appointment on
compassionate ground, the application ought to have been
filed within 5 years from the date of death of the staff
member as per the scheme guidelines and as on the date
of death of the father of the petitioner, there was no
scheme for compassionate appointment.
3. It is also submitted that in a similar
circumstance, the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of
SMT.VINODAMMA AND ANOTHER Vs. KARNATAKA
1
GRAMIN BANK , held that the employee died in harness
when the scheme notified by the Bank on 10.01.2009 was
1
W.P.No.18674/2019 and con. matters dt. 06.02.2021
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11745
WP No. 203632 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030092852026
in operation. However, the scheme was modified on
11.12.2013 which was subsisting at the time of application
and the Court has directed to consider the scheme which
was in existence at the time of death of the employee.
Hence, he seeks to apply the said principle. He further
submits that the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of
KUMARI A.G.RAMYA Vs. SYNDICATE BANK,
2
MANIPAL , at paragraph 1 has held that the Court shall
endeavour to find out whether a particular case in which
sympathetic considerations are to be weighed falls within
the scope of law. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.
4. Per contra, Sri.Basavakiran G.R., learned
counsel appearing for the respondents seeks to sustain the
impugned endorsement dated 26.05.2002 and submits
that as on the date of death of the employee, there was no
scheme existing to provide compassionate appointment.
It is submitted that the petitioner had filed an application
seeking compassionate appointment after a period of 13
2
ILR 2000 KAR 2619
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11745
WP No. 203632 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030092852026
years from the date of death of the employee which clearly
establishes that the petitioner is not in need of
employment. It is further submitted that the Authorities,
referring to the prevailing Rules and scheme, stated in the
endorsement that the application ought to have been filed
within 5 years of the death of the employee and no
provision to appoint on the date of death.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents and meticulously perused
the material available on record.
6. The undisputed facts of the case are that the
father of the petitioner late Munneer Ahmed was working
as a driver-cum-messenger with the respondent No.3-
Bank and he died on 31.08.2008. The wife of the
deceased employee submitted an application seeking
appointment on compassionate ground in the month of
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11745
WP No. 203632 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030092852026
December 2008 as is evident from Annexure-C. However,
it is to be noticed that the said application was not
pursued by her and now the present petition is filed by the
son of the deceased employee who had submitted an
application seeking appointment on compassionate ground
on 15.04.2021 which is after 13 years from the date of
death of the employee. The respondent-Bank had filed a
detailed statement of objections and produced the existing
scheme on compassionate appointment. Annexure-A to
the statement of objections dated 23.04.2007 is a scheme
for payment of lumpsum ex gratia in lieu of appointment
on compassionate ground to the dependants of the
employee dying in service and the said scheme came into
effect from 09.02.2007.
7. A perusal of the Annexure-1 to the scheme
clearly indicates that there shall be no appointment on
compassionate ground to the dependant member of the
family of the employee dying in harness / permitted to
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11745
WP No. 203632 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030092852026
retire on medical grounds. It is to be noticed that the
deceased employee had died on 31.08.2008 and on the
said day, the scheme of payment of lumpsum ex gratia in
lieu of appointment on compassionate ground, was in
force. Annexure-B to the statement of objections is dated
06.02.2009 is a scheme evolved by the Bank for
appointment of the dependants of the deceased employee
on compassionate ground in exceptional cases and the
scheme for payment of ex gratia amount in lieu of
appointment on compassionate ground. The said scheme
came into effect from 01.09.2008 which is admittedly after
the death of the deceased which creates a mechanism of
appointment on compassionate ground on exceptional
cases only on meeting certain requirements.
8. The scheme for appointment on compassionate
ground was again revised/modified by the respondent-
Bank as per Annexure-C to the statement of objections
which is dated 24.05.2019 which came into effect from
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11745
WP No. 203632 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030092852026
23.02.2019 which provides a mechanism for appointment
on compassionate ground which prescribes a time limit for
consideration of the application at Clause 8. Clause 8
indicates that the application for appointment under the
scheme for eligible dependant should normally be
considered up to 5 years from the date of death or
retirement on medical grounds and the decision must be
taken on merits in each case. It is to be noticed that as
on the date of filing of the application by the petitioner,
the scheme for compassionate appointment at Annexure-C
to the statement of objections dated 24.05.2019 was in
force and hence, considering the same, the Authorities
have referred in the impugned endorsement that the
application is required to be made by the dependant within
5 years from the date of death of the employee.
9. Admittedly, the said scheme has no application
on the case on hand and the applicable scheme was at
Annexure-A to the statement of objections dated
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11745
WP No. 203632 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030092852026
23.02.2007 which does not provide appointment on
compassionate ground.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner had
placed reliance on the decision of SMT.VINODAMMA
referred supra . It is to be noticed that the said case is
arising from the Karnataka Gramin Bank and the case on
hand is of the Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank and in
both the Bank, the scheme appears to be distinct and
different and hence, the said decision has no application to
the case on hand. Insofar as the decision of this Court in
the case of A.G.RAMYA referred supra, in the said case,
the Court has considered the decision rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of LIFE INSURANCE
CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. MRS.ASHA
3
RAMCHANDRAN AMBEKER and held that the Court
shall endeavour to find out whether a particular case in
which sympathetic considerations are to be made, falls
3
AIR 1994 SC 2148
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11745
WP No. 203632 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030092852026
within the scope of law and disregardful of law, however
hard the case may be, it should never be done. It is to be
noticed that in the case on hand, as on the date of death
of the employee, there was no scheme available with the
respondent-Bank to provide appointment on
compassionate ground. Hence, considering the same, the
respondent-Bank has issued the endorsement. I do not
find any error in the decision of the respondent-Bank in
rejecting the petitioner's request for appointment on
compassionate ground.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering
the case under the provisions of the Karnataka Civil
Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules,
1996 in the case of N. SANTOSH Vs. STATE OF
4
KARNATAKA AND OTHERS has held at paragraphs 8
8.1 to 13.
“8. The action taken by the respondents in
cancellation of appointment is under the provisions
4
(2020) 7 SCC 617
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11745
WP No. 203632 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030092852026
of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on
Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 and
therefore the relevant Rules are extracted
hereinbelow:
8.1. Unamended Rule 5:
“ 5. Application for appointment .—Every
dependant of a deceased government
servant, seeking appointment under these
Rules shall make an application within one
year from the date of death of the
government servant, in such form, as may be
notified by the Government, from time to
time, to the Head of the Department under
whom the deceased government servant was
working:
Provided that in the case of a minor,
application shall be made within a period of
one year after attaining majority.”
8.2. Following the amendment w.e.f. 1-4-1999,
the proviso to Rule 5 reads:
“Provided that in the case of a minor, he
must make an application within one year
from the date of death of the government
servant and he must have attained the age of
eighteen years on the date of making the
application:
Provided further that nothing in the first
proviso shall apply to an application made by
the dependant of a deceased government
servant, after attaining majority and which
was pending for consideration on the date of
commencement of the Karnataka Civil
Services (Appointment on Compassionate
Grounds) (Amendment) Rules, 1998.”
8.3. Following the 28-5-2002 amendment, Rule
9(3) reads as under:
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11745
WP No. 203632 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030092852026
“ 9. (3) All applications for appointment on
compassionate grounds made between the
13th day of September, 1996 and the date of
commencement of the Karnataka Civil
Services (Appointment on Compassionate
Grounds) 3rd Amendment Rules, 2002 by the
dependants of government servants who died
on or after 20-10-1989 (other than the
applications made by such dependants after
the first day of April, 1999 and till the date of
such commencement in contravention of the
first proviso to Rule 5 which are:
(i) rejected on the ground that they were
not made within the period specified in Rule
5, or
(ii) pending on such date of
commencement, shall be deemed to have
been made within the period specified under
Rule 5 and shall be reconsidered or as the
case may be considered for appointment
subject to other provisions of these Rules.”
9. While Rule 5, as it originally stood, enabled a
minor dependant to apply within one year after
attaining majority, the rule-making authority with
the amendment effected from 1-4-1999 stipulated
an outer limit of one year from the date of death of
the government servant for making application for
compassionate appointment. The validity of the
amended Rules is not challenged in any of the
present proceedings. Following the amendment,
the norms clearly suggest that the earlier provision
which enabled a minor dependant to apply on
attaining majority (may be years after the death of
the government servant), has been done away
with. The object of the amended provision is to
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11745
WP No. 203632 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030092852026
ensure that no application is filed beyond one year
of the death of the government employee. The
consequence of prohibiting application by a minor
beyond one year from the date of death of the
parent can only mean that the appellants were
undeserving beneficiaries of compassionate
appointment as they attained majority well beyond
one year of the death of their respective parents.
10. In all these cases, when the government
employee died, the appellants were minor and they
had turned 18, well beyond one year of death of
the parent. As can be seen from the details in the
chart, the dependants attained majority after a
gap of 2-6 years from the respective date of death
of their parents and then they applied for
appointment. By the time, the dependant children
turned 18, the amended provisions became
operational w.e.f. 1-4-1999. As such their belated
application for compassionate appointment should
have been rejected at the threshold as being not in
conformity with proviso to Rule 5. The appellants
applied for compassionate appointment (after
attainment of majority), well beyond the stipulated
period of one year from the date of death of the
parent, and therefore, those applications should
not have been entertained being in contravention
of the Rules.
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11745
WP No. 203632 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030092852026
11. The provision of the Karnataka Civil Services
(Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules,
1996 was considered in Commr. of Public
Instructions v. K.R. Vishwanath [Commr. of Public
Instructions v. K.R. Vishwanath, (2005) 7 SCC 206
: 2005 SCC (L&S) 927] . Speaking for the Division
Bench, Dr Arijit Pasayat, J. noted that the effect of
the amended second proviso is that, unless the
application is pending at the time of
commencement of the Amendment Rules, the
same can have no bearing on the claim for
compassionate appointment. Thus, belated
application filed by the dependant on attaining
majority beyond one year from the date of death
of the government employee would not be a valid
application, consistent with the provisions of the
Rules.
12. Insofar as the appellant's claim to legitimacy
of appointment on the basis of Rule 9(3) of the
Rules is concerned, a reading of Rule 9(3) suggests
that it is a transitory provision granting extension
of time for applying for compassionate
appointment. But, the transitory provision excludes
application filed in contravention of Rule 5, as
amended in 1999. In other words, the applications
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11745
WP No. 203632 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030092852026
filed by the minor dependants who had not
attained majority within one year from the date of
death of the government servants will be in
contravention of Rule 5. Therefore, we are of the
considered view that the cases of the appellants
are not covered by the transitory provision of Rule
9(3) introduced by the Notification dated 28-5-
2002.
13. It is well settled that for all the government
vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to
all aspirants as is mandated under Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution. However, appointment on
compassionate ground offered to a dependant of a
deceased employee is an exception to the said
norms. In SAIL v. Madhusudan Das [SAIL v.
Madhusudan Das, (2008) 15 SCC 560 : (2009) 2
SCC (L&S) 378] it was remarked accordingly that
compassionate appointment is a concession and
not a right and the criteria laid down in the Rules
must be satisfied by all aspirants.”
12. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the prevailing
regulation / scheme of the respondents-Bank, I am of the
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11745
WP No. 203632 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030092852026
considered view that the respondents-Bank was fully
justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner which
does not call for any interference.
13. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is
rejected .
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4