M SRIVARDHAN vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54669-DB
WP No. 16412 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010352572024




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT


AND

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

WRIT PETITION NO. 16412 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

M SRIVARDHAN
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
S/O. LATE S. MUNIRAJU,
GOWNIPALLI VILLAGE,
RAYALPADU HOBLI,
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VINAYA KEERTHY M., ADV.)


AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.

2. COMMISSIONER
DEPT. OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.

3. JOINT DIRECTOR/ADMINISTRATION
DEPT. OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.

4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DEPT. OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,









Digitally signed by
NANJUNDACHARI
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54669-DB
WP No. 16412 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010352572024


CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT,
CHIKKABALLAPURA.

5. BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
CHINTAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06/03/2024
PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.1408/2023 (ANNEXURE-A) AND
ALLOW THE PETITIONERS APPLICATION NO.1408/2023 AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

Heard learned counsel Sri.Vinaya Keerthy.M., for
petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate
Sri.Vikas Rojipura for respondents. Perused the entire writ
petition papers.

2. The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by
order dated 06.03.2024 in Application No.1408/2023

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54669-DB
WP No. 16412 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010352572024


passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at
Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) whereunder
petitioner’s prayer to quash the endorsement dated
06.02.2023 (Annexure-A9) rejecting the petitioner’s
request for appointment on compassionate grounds on the
ground that the family income of the petitioner is more
than what is prescribed under Rule 4(1) of the Karnataka
Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds)
Rules, 1996 (for short, ‘the Rules, 1996’).

3. It is stated that the father of the petitioner was
working as Assistant Teacher in the Government Lower
Primary School at Bachchaganahalli Village, Chinthamani
Taluk in the Department of School Education and Literacy.
It is stated that he died while in service on 30.07.2018.
The petitioner is said to have submitted an application
seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The
request of the petitioner was rejected by Communication
dated 15.11.2022. It is stated that petitioner said to have

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54669-DB
WP No. 16412 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010352572024


submitted detailed reply to Communication of the
respondents. Thereafter, again, without examining the
case of the petitioner in proper perspective in terms
of Rules 1996, endorsement dated 06.02.2023
(Annexure-A9) was issued to the petitioner. Questioning
the said endorsement, the petitioner was before the
Tribunal in the above stated Application No.1408/2023.
The Tribunal under impugned order dated 06.03.2024
dismissed the request of the petitioner to quash
endorsement dated 06.02.2023 and rejected the
petitioner’s Application. Questioning the same, the
petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
contend that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the
case of the petitioner and to apply Rule 4(1) of Rules,
1996. Learned counsel would submit that the respondent
authorities solely on the ground that family income of the
petitioner is more than what is prescribed under Rule 4(1)

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54669-DB
WP No. 16412 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010352572024


of Rules, 1996, rejected the request of the petitioner. It is
pointed out from Rule 4(1) of Rules, 1996 that while
calculating the income of the family, the authorities shall
exclude the family pension, pensionary benefits received
and interest earned thereon. However, he submits that the
respondent authorities taking note of the pension and
other income of the petitioner has erroneously come to the
conclusion that the petitioner’s income is more than what
is prescribed under Rule 4(1) of Rules, 1996. Thus, he
would pray for allowing the writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Government
Advocate Sri.Vikas Rojipura is not in a position to point out
how the authorities could have taken into consideration
the family pension and other pensionary benefits while
calculating the monthly income of the petitioner. Thus, he
would pray for passing appropriate order.

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54669-DB
WP No. 16412 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010352572024


papers, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal
failed to properly apply Rule 4(1) of Rules, 1996 to the
facts of the present case. Hence, the order passed by the
Tribunal as well as the endorsement at Annexure-A9 dated
06.02.2023 requires to be quashed.

7. The Tribunal while applying Rule 4(1) of Rules,
1996 has come to the conclusion that since the said Rule
was amended and under notification dated 09.04.2021, it
has prospective effect. The said finding is contrary to the
decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated
15.06.2026 in W.P.No.3765/2022 (SMT.SAVITHA.R. VS.
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS),
whereunder taking
note of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION (PRIMARY) AND OTHERS VS. BHEEMESH
,
ALIAS BHEEMAPPA [(2021) 20 SCC 707] at paragraphs
6, 7 and 8 has observed as follows:
“ 6. Having heard the learned counsel
appearing for the parties and on perusal of the

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54669-DB
WP No. 16412 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010352572024


entire writ petition papers, we are of the opinion
that the Tribunal committed a grave error in
rejecting the petitioner’s application and we are of
the considered opinion that the petitioner would be
entitled for consideration of her case for
compassionate appointment in terms of Rules, 1996
for the following reasons:
There is no dispute with regard to the fact
that petitioner’s father was working as Cook at Pre-
metric ST Boy’s Hostel, Nelagatenahatti, Challakere
Taluk. It is also not in dispute that she applied for
compassionate appointment on 27.12.2014 within
the time prescribed under Rules 1996. Rules, 1996
was amended to include married daughter in the
definition of ‘family’ by notification dated
09.04.2021. Taking note of the said amendment, a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
W.P.No.15961/2022 dated 23.08.2024 at
paragraphs 7 to 9 has held as follows:
“ 7. It is true that the dependents of the
deceased Government servant cannot claim
compassionate appointment as a matter of right.
But, the dependents of Government servant could
claim compassionate appointment under the existing
Scheme or existing Rules relating to compassionate
appointment. In the State of Karnataka,
compassionate appointment is governed by 1996
Rules. Prior to 2021, under 1996 Rules there was no
provision for consideration of the application of
dependent married daughter of a deceased
Government servant. This Court in the case of
SMT.BHUVANESHWARI V. PURANIK VS. STATE

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54669-DB
WP No. 16412 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010352572024


1
OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS had held that
married daughters not being entitled for
compassionate appointment to be unconstitutional.
Thereafter, the State Government under Notification
dated 09.04.2021 brought amendment to 1996 Rules
to expand the definition of dependent of a deceased
Government servant to include daughter
(unmarried/married/divorced/ widowed) who were
depending upon him. The amendment brought to
Sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of 1996 rules reads as follows:
“ 2. Amendment of Rule 2. – In the
Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on
Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996
(hereinafter referred to as the said rules), in
Rule 2, in sub-rule (1),
(1) for clause (a), the following shall be
substituted, namely:-

"(a) "dependent of a deceased Government
Servant" means a member of the family of the
deceased Government Servant who was living
with and dependent on the deceased
Government Servant and who fulfils the
conditions specified in the explanation to sub-
rule (1) of rule 4."

(2) for clause (b), the following shall be
substituted, namely:-

"(b) "family" for the purpose of these
rules,-

(i) in the case of the deceased male married
Government Servant, his widow, son and
daughter
(unmarried/married/divorced/widowed) who
were dependent upon him and were living
with him;

(ii) in the case of the deceased female married
Government Servant her son, daughter
(unmarried/married/divorced/widowed) and

1

ILR 2021 KAR 5256

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54669-DB
WP No. 16412 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010352572024


widower who were dependent upon her and
were living with her;


(iii) in the case of the deceased male unmarried
Government Servant, his brother or sister who
were dependent upon him and were living with
him;

(iv) in the case of the deceased female
unmarried Government Servant, her
brother or sister who were dependent upon
her and were living with her, and

(v) in the case of the deceased married
Government Servant whose spouse is also
no more and who has minor children, the
certified guardian of the minor children who
is living with them and takes care of the
minor children as per the provisions of
relevant law. ”

A reading of the above amendment, it is clear that
amendment to 1996 Rules is by way of substitution.

8. Learned Additional Government Advocate
placed reliance on the decision of BHEEMESH (supra) to
contend that the application for compassionate
appointment shall be considered in terms of the Rules
that existed as on the date of death of the Government
servant and further submitted that in the instant case
there was no provision to consider the request of married
daughter for compassionate ground appointment as on
the date of death of Government servant. The Hon'ble
Apex Court in the above decision i.e., BHEEMESH
(supra) was considering the amendment to 1996 Rules
dated 11.07.2012 by which, an unmarried brother of
deceased female unmarried Government servant was

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54669-DB
WP No. 16412 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010352572024


included within the definition of dependent of deceased
Government servant. The amendment brought under
Notification dated 11.07.2012 was by way of insertion of
additional words and the amendment was not by way of
substitution. Where amendment to a Rule or Act is by
way of substitution, the amended provision is to be read
as if it was there in the statute book from the day, the
said Rule or Act came into force. Since in BHEEMESH
(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court was considering
amendment to 1996 Rules by way of insertion and in that
circumstance, it held that the amendment would not be
applicable merely because the application for
appointment was taken up for consideration after the
issuance of the amendment. The ratio laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in BHEEMESH (supra) would have no
application to the facts of the present case since the
petitioner is seeking benefit of 2021 Amended Rules
which is by way of substitution.

9. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
SMT.LATHA.H.R., (supra) was considering identical
question and at paragraphs 6 and 7, it is held as
follows:
“6. Having considered the contentions
advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, we are of the opinion that the finding of
the Tribunal that the amendment had only
prospective effect and therefore the application
cannot be considered, cannot be accepted. The
petitioner's application has been rejected only on
the ground that she is a married daughter of the
deceased government servant. It is not disputed
that the provisions of the unamended Rules to the

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54669-DB
WP No. 16412 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010352572024


effect only an unmarried daughter could make an
application stood struck down as unconstitutional
and the said judgment has become final.
Thereafter, the Rules have also been amended
substituting the words "unmarried daughter" with
the word "daughter".

7. In the above view of the matter and in
view of the fact of amendment made to the Rules
by substitution, we are of the opinion that the
rejection of the application for appointment made
by the petitioner on the sole ground that she is a
married daughter cannot be accepted.””

A reading of the above would make it clear that in view
of the amendment, even married daughters would be
entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds.

7. The respondents could not have rejected
the case of the petitioner for compassionate
appointment on the ground that her mother is a
retired Government servant and she is in receipt of
pension. The case of the petitioner shall have to be
considered by the respondents in terms of Rule
4(1)(b) and also Rules 5 and 6 of Rules, 1996.

8. The Tribunal having come to the
conclusion that it is settled law that a married
daughter is also entitled for compassionate
appointment, has not stated any reason to conclude
that applicant is not entitled for compassionate
appointment as per Rules. ”

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54669-DB
WP No. 16412 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010352572024


8. Further, the endorsement of the respondents at
Annexure-A9 dated 06.02.2023 indicates that the
respondent authorities have taken note of the pensionary
benefits to arrive at conclusion that the income of the
petitioner is more that what is prescribed under Rule 4(1)
of Rules, 1996. Rule 4(1)(a) of Rules, 1996 makes it clear
that for calculating the monthly income, the income from
family pension, lump sum pensionary benefits and interest
earned shall be excluded. In view of the above Rules, the
case of the petitioner shall have to be re-considered.
Hence, the following:
ORDER
a) Impugned order passed by the Tribunal in
Application No.1408/2023 dated
06.03.2024 stands set aside.

b) Consequently, impugned endorsement
bearing No. J10(¹1)/2526/C.D.£ÉÃ/69/2020-
21/203 dated 06.02.2023 is also quashed.

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54669-DB
WP No. 16412 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010352572024



c) The respondents are directed to consider
afresh the case of the petitioner for
appointment on compassionate grounds,
strictly in accordance with law and in
terms of Rule 4 of Rules, 1996.

Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of.



Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE




NC
CT:bms
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9