THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER vs SMT MANTAVVA W/O MANTAPPA LOLASAR

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17610-DB
WA No. 100758 of 2025
R

CNR: KAHC020249872025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAAT DHARWAD

TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

AND

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI

WRIT APPEAL NO.100758 OF 2025 (S-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
KKRTC, BALLARI DIVISION,
BALLARI – 583 101.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSMANI,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. MANTAVVA W/O. MANTAPPA LOLASAR,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: ARASANAL GRAM, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST: VIJAYPUR – 586124.

Digitally signed
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench

2. SRI. SANGANNA S/O. MANTAPPA LOLASAR,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: ARASANAL GRAM, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST: VIJAYPUR – 586124
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE,ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
19/08/2025 IN W.P.NO.101661/2025 (S-KSRTC) PASSED BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17610-DB
WA No. 100758 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020249872025

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARYHEARING
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

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

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

1. The appellant – Kalyana Karnataka Road
Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
Corporation’ for the sake of brevity) is before this Court
calling in question the order dated 19-08-2025 passed by
the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.101661 of 2025,
whereby the learned Single Judge has directed
nd
consideration of the claim of the 2 respondent for
appointment on compassionate grounds, notwithstanding
the prescription contained in the Circular governing such
appointments in the Corporation.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Prashant
Hosmani appearing for the appellant/Corporation and
learned counsel Sri.Ravi Hegde for the respondents.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17610-DB
WA No. 100758 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020249872025

3. The facts adumbrated are as follows:
st
3.1 One Veeresh Mantappa Lolasar, son of the 1
respondent, enters the services of the Corporation as a
Driver on 18-03-2008 and continues to serve the
Corporation until 21-09-2023, when death intervenes and
brings his service to an abrupt end. The death of the
employee in harness becomes the genesis of the present
st
controversy. The 1 respondent, mother of the deceased
employee, submits an application seeking appointment on
compassionate grounds, not for herself, but for her other
son, the brother of the deceased employee. The
Corporation declines the request on the ground that the
brother does not fall within the definition of a dependent
family member under the Circular governing
compassionate appointments. The rejection leads the
respondents to knock at the doors of this Court in the
aforesaid writ petition.
3.2 The learned Single Judge, accepting the plea of
the writ petitioners, allows the petition and directs the

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17610-DB
WA No. 100758 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020249872025

Corporation to consider and appoint the brother of the
deceased employee on compassionate grounds. It is this
direction that has driven the Corporation to the portals of
this Court in the present appeal.

4. Sri Prashant Hosmani, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant/Corporation, would
vehemently contend that the learned Single Judge has
travelled beyond the precincts of the Circular governing
compassionate appointments. He would submit that the
Circular defines, with unmistakable precision, the persons
who would constitute the family of a deceased employee
and those who would qualify as dependents for the
purpose of securing compassionate appointment. The
brother of the deceased employee, who is admittedly
married and residing separately with his own family, does
not answer the description of a dependent under the
Circular.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17610-DB
WA No. 100758 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020249872025

5. He would contend that compassionate
appointment, being an exception to the constitutional
mandate of equality in public employment, cannot be
converted into an avenue of employment for persons
whom the governing policy consciously excludes. The
learned Single Judge, according to the learned counsel,
has permitted considerations of sympathy to eclipse the
express stipulations of the Circular. He would, therefore,
seek setting aside of the order impugned.

6. Per contra, Sri Ravi Hegde, learned counsel
representing the respondents, would seek to sustain the
order of the learned Single Judge. He would submit that
the very soul of compassionate appointment lies in
rescuing a family from the sudden financial catastrophe
that follows the death of its breadwinner. The deceased
employee having lost his wife during his lifetime and
having left behind neither wife nor children, the mother
and the brother were the surviving relations who looked to
him for support.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17610-DB
WA No. 100758 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020249872025

7. He would further submit that the brother has
placed an affidavit undertaking to maintain and take care
of the aged mother. The learned Single Judge, bearing in
mind the object and purpose of compassionate
appointment, has appropriately directed consideration of
the claim. He would, therefore, seek dismissal of the
appeal.

8. A skeletal reiteration of the facts, though at the
cost of repetition, becomes necessary to unravel the
lis
controversy that lies at the heart of the present .

st

9. The 1 respondent is the mother of the
deceased employee, Veeresh, who had served the
Corporation as a Driver from 18-03-2008 until his death
on 21-09-2023. The employee was married. His wife,
however, predeceased him on 09-04-2022. The marriage
had not been blessed with children. Thus, when the
employee breathed his last, he left behind neither a

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17610-DB
WA No. 100758 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020249872025

surviving spouse nor any children. The mother and his
brother remained.

10. The mother was, at the relevant point in time,
aged about 65 years, while the brother was aged about 34
years. The mother, understandably, did not seek
employment for herself. She sought appointment for her
other son, the brother of the deceased employee. The
brother was admittedly married and residing separately
with his own family. An affidavit came to be placed on
record by the brother undertaking that, if appointed on
compassionate grounds, he would look after and maintain
the mother.

11. The learned Single Judge, placing emphasis
upon the circumstance that the wife of the deceased
employee had predeceased him, that there were no
children and that the brother had undertaken to take care
the mother, allowed the writ petition by the following
order:

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17610-DB
WA No. 100758 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020249872025

“2. Petitioner No.1 is the mother and Petitioner
No.2 is the brother of deceased Veeresh
Mantappa Lolasar, who was employed as a
driver with Respondent Corporation on
18.3.2008. He having expired in harness on
21.9.2023, an application having been made
for appointment on compassionate basis by
the Petitioners seeking for appointment of
Petitioner No.2-brother of the deceased, the
said application came to be rejected vide
endorsement dated 4.11.2024 at Annexure-D
on the ground that the deceased Veeresh
Mantappa Lolasar was married and as such,
no employment on compassionate basis could
be provided to his brother.
3. Sri. Ravi Hegde, learned counsel for the
Petitioners would submit that though there is
no dispute of Veeresh Mantappa Lolasar
having been married, his wife Sunanda
predeceased him on 9.4.2022 without any
children and the said Veeresh Mantappa
Lolasar was taking care of his mother and
brother and as such, he submits that
appointment on compassionate basis ought to
have been provided to his brother, who is
also looking after the mother.
4. Sri. Prakash Hosamani, learned counsel for
the Respondent, however, contends that as
per the policy of the Respondent - Road
Transport Corporation, if the deceased were
to be married, compassionate employment
cannot be provided for anyone else other
than the wife and children.
5. Heard Sri.Ravi Hegde, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri.Prakash Hosmani, learned
counsel for the respondent and perused
papers.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17610-DB
WA No. 100758 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020249872025

6. A short question that would arise for
consideration in the matter is whether a
deceased employee’s spouse were to
predecease him, could the Road Transport
Corporation even then contend that a
compassionate appointment cannot be
granted to any other relative of the deceased
employee?
7. The ambit and purport of appointment on a
compassionate basis is to ensure that the
family of the deceased employee is taken
care of and the exigencies due to the death
ought not to result in a financial burden to
the family. In the present matter, the Road
Transport Corporation does not deny
compassionate appointment but only
contends that Petitioner No.2 could not be
granted a compassionate appointment since
the deceased employee was married.
However, the fact remains that the spouse of
the deceased employee had predeceased him
on 9.4.2022, and they do not have any
children who could seek a compassionate
appointment.
8. Petitioner No.1-mother, and Petitioner No.2-
brother, are living together, and after the
death of the spouse, the deceased employee
was taking care of both his mother and
brother. In that view of the matter, I am of
the opinion that Petitioner No.2, having
undertaken to take care of Petitioner No.1,
the mother, the application of Petitioner No.2
for appointment on a compassionate basis
ought to have been considered by the
Respondent in a proper perspective.
9. Hence, I answer the point framed by holding
that if the spouse of the employee had
predeceased the employee and there are no
children, the mere marriage of the deceased

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17610-DB
WA No. 100758 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020249872025

employee cannot be a ground to reject an
application for compassionate appointment.
In that background, I pass the following:
ORDER

i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

ii) A certiorari is issued. The
endorsement dated 4.11.2024
bearing No.KA.KA.RA.SABA.VI/
SIBBANDI/ R-1/ 2608/ 2024 at
Annexure-D is quashed.

iii) Respondent-Corporation is
directed to consider the
application of Petitioner No.2 and
appoint Petitioner No.2 on
compassionate grounds to a
suitable post as per his
qualification within a period of
twelve weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.

iv) Liberty is, however, reserved to
Petitioner No.1 to move for
cancellation of the above order in
the event of Petitioner No.2 not
taking care of Petitioner No.1. ”

12. The facts narrated hereinabove are neither in
the realm of dispute nor do they admit of any ambiguity.
What emerges with striking clarity is that the deceased
employee, though married, had lost his wife even before
his own demise and had left behind no children. The

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17610-DB
WA No. 100758 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020249872025

mother survives him. The brother, for whom
compassionate appointment is sought, is himself married,
aged about 34 years and residing separately with his own
family.

13. The question that therefore falls for
consideration is not whether the plight of an aged
mother deserves sympathy. It undoubtedly does.
The question is whether sympathy, however
profound, can confer an entitlement to public
employment upon a person who does not fall within
the definition of a dependent under the governing
Circular.

14. The answer to the aforesaid question must
necessarily be found within the four corners of the Circular
governing compassionate appointments in the
Corporation. The Circular delineates the expression
'dependent' and defines the family members who would be
eligible to seek appointment upon the death of an

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17610-DB
WA No. 100758 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020249872025

employee in harness. The relevant portion of the Circular
reads as follows:
“11 ªÁåSÁå£À:
b
(1)( ) RAqÀzÀ §zÀ¯ÁV, F ªÀÄÄA¢£ÀzÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àæw¸ÁÜ¦¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
b
"( ) "PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå gÀ¸ÉÛ ¸ÁjUÉ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀ CªÀ®A©vÀ"
JAzÀgÉ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdågÀ¸ÉÛ ¸ÁjUÉ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ £ËPÀgÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ
ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DvÀ¤UÉ CªÀ®A©vÀgÁVzÀÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤ÃwAiÀÄ CA±À ¸ÀASÉå
4(1) gÀ «ªÀgÀuÉUÀ¼À°è ¤¢ðµÀÖ¥Àr¹zÀ µÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀÇgÉÊ¹gÀÄªÀ
DvÀ£ÀPÀÄlÄA§zÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ.
c
(1)( ) ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ £ËPÀgÀjUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ "PÀÄlÄA§" JAzÀgÉ:-
i
( ) ªÀÄÈvÀ ¥ÀÅgÀÄµÀ «ªÁ»vÀ £ËPÀgÀ£ÁzÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°èDvÀ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É
CªÀ®A©vÀgÁVzÀÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DvÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÝDvÀ£À «zsÀªÁ
¥Àwß, ªÀÄUÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ
(C«ªÁ»vÉ/«ªÁ»vÉ/«ZÉÒÃ¢vÉ/«zsÀªÉ);
ii
( ) ªÀÄÈvÀ ªÀÄ»¼Á «ªÁ»vÀ £ËPÀgÀ¼ÁzÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è, DPÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É
CªÀ®A©vÀgÁVzÀÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DPÉAiÉÆA¢UÉ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÝ DPÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ,
ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ (C«ªÁ»vÉ/«ªÁ»vÉ/«ZÉÒÃ¢vÉ/«zsÀªÉ), ªÀÄvÀÄÛ «zsÀÄgÀ
¥Àw:
iii
( ) ªÀÄÈvÀ ¥ÀÅgÀÄµÀ C«ªÁ»vÀ £ËPÀgÀ£ÁzÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è DvÀ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É
CªÀ®A©vÀgÁVzÀÝ ªÀÄvÀÄ ÛDvÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÝ DvÀ£À
¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀ CxÀªÁ ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀj:
iv
( ) ªÀÄÈvÀ ªÀÄ»¼Á C«ªÁ»vÀ £ËPÀgÀ¼ÁzÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ®è, DPÉAiÀÄ
ªÉÄÃ¯É CªÀ®A©vÀgÁVzÀÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DPÉAiÉÆA¢UÉ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÝ
DPÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀ CxÀªÁ ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀj.”

15. A plain reading of the afore-quoted Circular
would leave little room for interpretative ingenuity. The
Circular draws a conscious distinction between the family

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17610-DB
WA No. 100758 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020249872025

of a married deceased employee and that of an unmarried
deceased employee. In the case of a married male
employee, the specified eligible dependents are the widow
and children, subject to the conditions stipulated therein.
In the case of an unmarried male employee, a dependent
brother or sister residing with the employee may fall
within the fold of eligibility.

16. The distinction is neither accidental nor
inconsequential. It is a distinction consciously engrafted
into the policy. The deceased employee in the case at
hand was admittedly married. The fact that his wife
predeceased him cannot, by any interpretative exercise,
transform a married employee into an unmarried
employee for the purpose of bringing his brother within
the ambit of the Circular.

17. Marriage is a fact in the life of the
employee; the death of the spouse does not
obliterate that fact. Widowhood or widowerhood

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17610-DB
WA No. 100758 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020249872025

cannot be judicially equated with never having been
married, merely to confer an eligibility which the
policy does not contemplate. The brother, therefore,
cannot claim the benefit of a provision expressly fashioned
for the dependent brother or sister of an unmarried
deceased employee.

18. The object of compassionate appointment
is undoubtedly laudable. It is conceived as a
measure of immediate succour to a family suddenly
deprived of its breadwinner. It seeks to alleviate the
financial distress that descends upon the
dependents when death unexpectedly snatches
away the earning member of the family. But the
benevolence underlying the scheme cannot be
permitted to become an instrument for dismantling
the scheme itself. Compassion is the foundation of
the scheme; eligibility is its boundary. The
foundation cannot be invoked to demolish the
boundary.

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17610-DB
WA No. 100758 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020249872025

19. To stretch the definition of a dependent beyond
its express contours, so as to accommodate every near,
dear or distant relation of the deceased employee, would
be to convert a narrowly tailored exception into an
expansive entitlement. Such an interpretation would not
advance the object of compassionate appointment; it
would defeat the very discipline upon which the scheme
rests.

20. The Courts, while interpreting a scheme of
compassionate appointment, cannot substitute their
own perception of compassion for the conditions
prescribed by the employer. Judicial sympathy
cannot rewrite an administrative policy. Equitable
considerations, however appealing, cannot
manufacture an eligibility where none exists.The law
does not command the Court to be bereft of
compassion. It commands that compassion, when
translated into a direction for public employment,
must remain within the limits prescribed by law.

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17610-DB
WA No. 100758 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020249872025

21. The case at hand presents precisely such a
situation. The brother of the deceased employee is
married. He has his own family. He resides separately. He
does not satisfy the definition of a dependent under the
governing Circular. The mere circumstance that he has
sworn to an affidavit undertaking to maintain the aged
mother cannot elevate him into the category of an eligible
dependent.

22. An undertaking to maintain one's mother may
reflect a familial obligation. It may even be a
commendable assurance. But it cannot become the
juridical foundation for securing an appointment in public
employment contrary to the governing policy. A moral
obligation cannot, by the mere filing of an affidavit,
metamorphose into a statutory or policy-based
entitlement. If such undertakings were to become the
touchstone of eligibility, the carefully prescribed conditions
of compassionate appointment would be rendered otiose.

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17610-DB
WA No. 100758 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020249872025

Every person falling outside the scheme could seek entry
into its fold by professing an intention to maintain a
surviving relation of the deceased employee. That would
open a door which the policy has deliberately kept closed.

23. The learned Single Judge has proceeded on the
premise that, since the wife of the deceased employee had
predeceased him and there were no children, the brother
ought to be considered for compassionate appointment
upon his undertaking to maintain the mother. The
reasoning, though undoubtedly animated by
considerations of compassion, overlooks the fundamental
distinction between the object of a policy and the eligibility
prescribed for availing its benefit.

24. The object of the scheme cannot be read in
isolation from its express terms. The object explains why
the scheme exists; the eligibility conditions determine to
whom it applies. One cannot be employed to obliterate the
other.

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17610-DB
WA No. 100758 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020249872025

25. The learned Single Judge, in our considered
view, has permitted the equitable consideration of
providing succour to the aged mother to override the clear
prescription of the Circular. In doing so, the order
impugned enlarges the class of eligible dependents beyond
what the Corporation has contemplated. Compassionate
appointment cannot become compassionate
recruitment. Nor can a Court, moved by the hardship
of an individual, create a new class of beneficiaries
under the guise of interpreting an existing one.

26. Before parting, we deem it appropriate to
observe that compassionate appointment is a
concession born of necessity, not a right born of
relationship. Its purpose is to rescue a dependent
family from sudden destitution, not to perpetuate
employment within a family by succession.
Compassion must remain the soul of the scheme,
but the law must remain its sentinel.

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17610-DB
WA No. 100758 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020249872025

27. In the light of the foregoing analysis, we are of
the considered view that the learned Single Judge has
fallen into an error warranting interference at our hands.
The brother of the deceased employee, who is married,
residing distantly and not being a dependent within the
meaning of the Circular, cannot claim appointment on
compassionate grounds merely on the strength of an
undertaking to maintain his mother.

28. For the foregoing reasons, the following:
ORDER

(i) The Writ Appeal is allowed .

(ii) The order dated 19-08-2025 passed by
the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.101661 of 2025 stands set-
aside .

(iii) The rejection of the claim for
compassionate appointment by the
appellant/Corporation stands sustained.

- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17610-DB
WA No. 100758 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020249872025

(iv) It is made clear that the observations
herein are confined to the claim for
compassionate appointment under the
governing Circular and shall not prejudice
any other benefit, if otherwise admissible
to the legal heirs of the deceased
employee in accordance with law.

Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE

Sd/-
(HEMA KULKARNI)
JUDGE

JTR & VNP
CT: ASC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30