THE STATE OF KARNATAKA vs MALLANAGOUDA SIDDANAGOUDA KIRASUR S/O SIDDANAGOUDA KIRASUR

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17121-DB
WP No. 148270 of 2020


CNR: KAHC020092972020


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

AND

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI

WRIT PETITION NO.148270 OF 2020 (S-KAT)

BETWEEN:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION,
ANANDRAO CIRCLE,
BENGALURU – 560 009.







3. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER,
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT DIVISION,
UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT,
BAGALKOT – 587 103.

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT
DEVISION - 4, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT,
ALMATTI – 586 201.



Digitally signed
by
VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2026.10.31
11:43:26 +0530


…PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

AND:

MALLANAGOUDA SIDDANAGOUDA KIRASUR
S/O. SIDDANAGOUDA KIRASUR,
AGED ABOU 31 YEARS,
RESIDING AT F-129, ALMATTI DAM SITE,
BASAVANA BAGEVADI, ALAMATTI – 586 201,
VIJAPURA DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAHUL S. KUNTOJI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17121-DB
WP No. 148270 of 2020


CNR: KAHC020092972020

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TOF ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
13.08.2018 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION,
NO.6596/2016 BY ORDER DATED 26.03.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-C
AND DISMISS THE APPLICATION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
AND
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI

ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA )



1. The State is calling in question an order of the
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to
as ‘the Tribunal’, for short) in Application No.6596/2016 which
allows the claim of the respondent to be considered for
appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of its order
dated 26.03.2019.


2. Heard Smt. Girija Hiremath, learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners and the
learned counsel Sri. Rahul S. Kuntoji appearing for the
respondent.


3. The facts in brief germane are as follows:

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17121-DB
WP No. 148270 of 2020


CNR: KAHC020092972020



4. The father of the respondent was working as Work
Inspector in the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer for
the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Division No.4, Almatti. He
had joined the service on 01.01.1990 and had become
incapacitated to work due to paralysis. Owing to the said
medical condition of the father of the respondent, he submits
his application seeking voluntary retirement on medical
grounds in terms of the Rules that was prevailing at the time
when the application was rendered. The State accepts the
application seeking voluntary retirement of the father of the
respondent and relieves him from service on 31.10.2013. The
event that happened in the interregnum was withdrawal of the
Rules which permitted voluntary retirement on medical
grounds and compassionate appointment to be given to the
person who seeks voluntary retirement on medical grounds.
This happens on 25.10.2013. But after the application of the
father of the respondent.


5. In the year 2014, the respondent applies for
appointment and compassionate grounds. That comes to be
rejected on the score that the Rule under which the entitlement

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17121-DB
WP No. 148270 of 2020


CNR: KAHC020092972020

of the respondent was for appointment on compassionate
grounds since being withdrawn, the appointment could not be
granted. This is challenged before the Tribunal by the
respondent. The Tribunal in terms of the order allows the
application, directs consideration of the appointment following
the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of one
Sri. V. Sivamurthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others
which had considered similar circumstances. The State is now
before the Court calling that in question.


6. The learned High Court Government Pleader Smt.
Girija Hiremath would submit that the Rule itself was not in
existence at the time at which the respondent applied for
appointment on compassionate grounds. Therefore, the said
application did not merit consideration. The order of the
Tribunal is erroneous where it has directed consideration in the
absence of a particular Rule today. The learned HCGP would
submit that the acceptance of the application of the father of
the respondent was on 31.10.2013, while 6 days prior to that
the Rule had itself been withdrawn.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17121-DB
WP No. 148270 of 2020


CNR: KAHC020092972020


7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent
would submit that, as on the date the application was
submitted, the Rule was in existence, the application was
submitted under the Rules, the application was processed
under the rules and voluntary retirement was accepted and the
father of the respondent was relieved only under the Rules.
Therefore, those Rules will have to be made applicable and not
the one that prevailed later or if it is withdrawn.


8. We have given our anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and perused the material on record.


9. The afore narrated facts are not in dispute. It is
only the link in the chain of events that would require iteration.


10. The father of the respondent joins the service in the
year 1990. Becomes paralytic during his service. The case of
the father of the respondent was placed before the Medical
Board. The Medical Board opined that he was unfit to continue
in his duties. Based upon the report of the Medical Board, the
father of the respondent applies for voluntary retirement under
a particular Rule that was prevalent as on the date of the

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17121-DB
WP No. 148270 of 2020


CNR: KAHC020092972020

application. The application was on 03.10.2013. This is
processed, taken forward and the father of the respondent was
relieved on acceptance of such voluntary retirement under the
Rule under which he had submitted the application.


11. The interregnum is, on 25.10.2013 the Rule is
withdrawn. Withdrawal of the Rule after the submission of the
application and the consideration of the application relieving of
the father of the respondent under the prevalent Rule cannot
be made use of now to contend that the respondent has
submitted his application seeking appointment on
compassionate grounds in terms of a Rule that stood
withdrawn. The medical condition is admitted, the application
on 03.10.2013 is admitted at the time when the Rules were
prevalent, the processing of the application of the father of the
respondent is admittedly under the Rules that were prevailing
and relief is also under the Rules that were prevailing. The Rule
that is withdrawn is never made applicable to the father of the
respondent, therefore, cannot be shown to become applicable
to the son for appointment on compassionate grounds, as the
Rule itself that was prevalent rendered a right to the

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17121-DB
WP No. 148270 of 2020


CNR: KAHC020092972020

respondent for his case to be considered for appointment of
compassionate ground. The order of the Tribunal thus would
not warrant any interference as it is in consonance with law.

In that light, the petition of the State stands rejected.




Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(HEMA KULKARNI)
JUDGE





kmv
CT: ASC