SMT ANUSHA S vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54074-DB
WP No. 18891 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010420602025




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

PRESENT

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


AND

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

WRIT PETITION NO. 18891 OF 2025 (S-KSAT)


BETWEEN:

SMT. ANUSHA S
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
D/O LATE SMT. N. RAJESHWARI
AND SRI SUBBA RAMA SETTY,
ND
R/AT NO.611, 2 MAIN,
ND
2 CROSS, NGEF LAYOUT,
NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU-560 072.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BHADRI R @ BHADRINATH R., ADV.)

AND:







1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.

2. THE COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAX,
CENTRAL OFFICE, GANDHINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 009.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN
RESPECT OF THE ENDORSEMENT/ORDER DATED 29/01/2024,
BEARING T.NO.356/23-24, SIBBANDI-2/2A/CR-26/2021-22, PASSED
BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A6,

Digitally signed by
NANJUNDACHARI
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54074-DB
WP No. 18891 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010420602025


ORDER/ENDORSEMENT BEARING T.NO.13/24-25/T.NO.07/24-25,
SIBBANDI-2/2A/CR-26/2021-22, DATED 02/04/2025 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 AS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A11 AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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)

The petitioner is before this Court, questioning order
dated 10.03.2025 in Application No.4972/2024 passed by
the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru
(for short “Tribunal”), rejecting the challenge of the
petitioner to impugned endorsement dated 29.01.2024
(Annexure-A6) as well as endorsement dated 02.04.2024
(Annexure-A11) whereunder, the petitioner’s request for
compassionate appointment is rejected on the ground that
the petitioner was not dependent on the deceased
Government Servant i.e., mother.

2. The brief facts of the case are that:

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54074-DB
WP No. 18891 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010420602025


The petitioner is daughter of Late Smt.N.Rajeshwari
who was working as Commercial Tax Officer in the
Commercial Tax Department. It is stated that the mother of
the petitioner died while in service on 05.05.2021. It is the
case of the petitioner that she and her father were
dependants of Late Rajeshwari. As the father of the
petitioner had given up his right for compassionate
appointment, it is stated that the petitioner submitted her
application along with relevant documents seeking
compassionate appointment. It is stated that endorsement
dated 29.01.2024 was issued, stating that the petitioner was
not living with the mother as she is married and was living
with her husband and with a further observation that the
petitioner was not dependant on her mother as on the date
of death of the mother, request of the petitioner for
compassionate appointment was rejected. Thereafter, the
petitioner is said to have submitted one more representation
dated 11.03.2024 seeking compassionate appointment.
Again, the respondents considered the said representation

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54074-DB
WP No. 18891 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010420602025


and issued one more endorsement dated 02.04.2024 with
the same reason. The said endorsements were the subject
matter of application before the Tribunal in Application
No.4972/2024. After hearing the parties to the application,
the Tribunal, under impugned order dated 10.03.2025
rejected petitioner’s challenge to both endorsements dated
29.01.2024 as well as 02.04.2024 holding that the petitioner
has failed to establish that she was depending on her
mother as on the date of death of her mother. Questioning
the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, as well as the
endorsements dated 29.01.2024 and 02.04.2024, the
petitioner is before this Court.

3. Heard learned counsel Sri.Badrinath for petitioner
and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.Vikas
Rojipura for respondents. Perused the entire writ petition
papers.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the endorsements issued by the respondents is without

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54074-DB
WP No. 18891 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010420602025


verifying the records and without application of mind.
Further, he submits that the petitioner though married
was residing with the mother as on the date of her death.
It is further submitted that the petitioner was the only
daughter and the she was looking after the mother as on
the date of her death. Therefore, endorsements without
verifying the factual position is bad in law. Further,
learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
Tribunal without examining the contentions of the
petitioner and without verifying the factual position
rejected the application.

5. Per contra, learned AGA Sri.Vikas Rojipura would
submit that the petitioner has not established the fact that
she was not living with her husband and she was
depending on her mother as on the date of death of her
mother. Further, learned AGA would submit that in terms
of Rule 4 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on
Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 (for short “Rules

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54074-DB
WP No. 18891 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010420602025


1996”) the petitioner shall establish the dependency and
also that her income is less than the prescribed limit under
Rule 4 of 1996 Rules. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of
the writ petition.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are not
inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by
the Tribunal as well as the impugned endorsements which
are under challenge.

7. In the State of Karnataka, the appointment on
compassionate grounds is governed by Rules 1996. Rule 3
of 1996 Rules makes it clear that the appointment on
compassionate ground shall not be claimed as a matter of
right and shall not be given as a matter of course. Rule 4
of Rules 1996 lays down the conditions of appointment.
Under Rule 4, the dependants of deceased Government
servant shall establish their financial crisis and destitution.
Further, they shall also establish that their income from all

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54074-DB
WP No. 18891 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010420602025


sources would not exceed the average of the minimum
and the maximum of the scale of pay of the post of First
Division Assistant, as on the date of making application for
compassionate appointment. The compassionate
appointment would be subject to the conditions laid down
under Rule 4 of 1996 Rules. The petitioner is a married
daughter and on the basis of amendment brought into
force in the year 2021, married daughters would also be
entitled to claim compassionate appointment. However,
the said claim shall be on establishing their dependency on
the deceased Government servant.

8. Learned counsel Sri.Badrinath would contend that
the petitioner was living and residing with the mother of
the deceased Government servant as on the date of death
of her mother. However, no cogent material whatsoever is
placed on record to establish the same. The residential
certificate and Police Verification which are placed on
record as Annexures-R1 and R2 by the State Government

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54074-DB
WP No. 18891 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010420602025


before the Tribunal would amply establishes that the
petitioner on her marriage was residing with her husband
in a different place. In the above circumstances, we do
not find any error or illegality in the endorsements issued
by the respondents.

9. The Tribunal also taking note of the amended
definition under Rules 1996 as well as the decision of this
Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the
endorsements issued by the respondent-authorities are
not erroneous or illegal. Thus, we find no merit in the writ
petition and accordingly, the petition stands rejected.


Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE

MPK
CT:bms
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10