After 9 Years Of State Inaction On A Disabled Ambulance Driver’s Medical-Retirement Request, Karnataka HC Orders Consideration Of His Son’s Compassionate-Appointment Claim

The first petitioner, an ambulance driver appointed in 2001 and made permanent in 2006, suffered an accident that left him unable to perform his duties. Medical Board reports dated 7 August 2014 and 12 May 2017 recommended that he be relieved on medical grounds; however, the State did not act on them.

The first petitioner reached superannuation in 2023 and died while the writ petition was pending, leaving his son as the surviving petitioner.

The petitioners had challenged the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal’s dismissal of their application, which was based on the view that the relevant rules were no longer in force when the Tribunal considered the matter.

The son sought consideration for compassionate appointment, and the petition also sought payment of the deceased employee’s terminal benefits.

The Court relied on Rule 3A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, which makes dependants of a Government servant retired on medical grounds eligible for compassionate appointment, subject to the prescribed conditions; the applicable rules and procedure are those relevant to such retirement.

It also relied on the Division Bench decision in W.P. No. 45/2019, decided 18 March 2020, which upheld consideration of a dependant’s compassionate-appointment claim under Rule 3A where a Medical Board had found the employee permanently disabled and unable to perform duties.

The Court applied the principle that the State’s failure to act on a qualifying medical recommendation cannot be used to defeat the dependant’s claim where the relevant rules were in force when the incapacity and recommendation arose.

The Medical Board had recommended relief on medical grounds in 2014 and again in 2017, when the relevant rules were in force, but the State took no decision for years. The Court held that the Tribunal erred by focusing on the rules’ status when it heard the application rather than when the employee’s incapacity was assessed and the recommendations made.

The employee’s subsequent superannuation—and death during the proceedings—did not justify attributing the consequences of the State’s inaction to the son.

Following the approach in W.P. No. 45/2019, the Court directed consideration of the son’s claim under the applicable rules, without itself deciding that he must be appointed.

The State was directed to consider the second petitioner’s compassionate-appointment claim, bearing in mind the Court’s observations, within 12 weeks of receiving the order.

The State was also directed to disburse the deceased employee’s terminal benefits within the same period.