01Facts
Late Mohammed Zakariya, a driver employed by the Kalyan Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KKRTC), died in service on 1 July 2023, leaving his wife, Petitioner No. 1, and minor daughter, Petitioner No. 2, as dependants.
p. 4On 27 January 2025, Petitioner No. 1 sought compassionate appointment for her daughter, stating that she was illiterate and the daughter was a minor.
p. 4KKRTC rejected the representation on 18 February 2025, citing the daughter’s minority and the application’s delay.
p. 4The petition sought to quash that endorsement and to have the delay condoned.
pp. 2–302Issues
i.1. Whether KKRTC correctly interpreted its Compassionate Appointment Policy, 2018, in rejecting the representation because Petitioner No. 2 was a minor and the application was made after the ordinary one-year period.
pp. 4–6ii.2. Whether Petitioner No. 2 could apply for compassionate appointment within one year after attaining majority, with the Corporation required to consider that application.
p. 603Law Applied
Clause 5 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Appointment on Compassionate Basis) Policy, 2018, requires eligible dependants to apply within one year of the employee’s death.
pp. 4–6Where the dependant is a minor, the policy permits the dependant to apply within one year of attaining majority, with the application to be considered for an available post in accordance with the applicable rules and the dependant’s qualifications.
pp. 4–6The judgment identified no separate statutory provision or precedent as the basis of its decision.
04Reasoning
The Court read Clause 5 as expressly providing a separate application period for a minor dependant: one year from the date the dependant attains majority.
pp. 5–6Petitioner No. 2 was a minor when the representation was made, so KKRTC’s reliance on the ordinary filing period and her minority to reject the request reflected an incorrect interpretation of the policy.
pp. 5–6The Court therefore set aside the rejection but left the merits of any future application to the Corporation’s consideration under the policy and applicable law.
p. 605Holding
The Court allowed the petition and quashed the endorsement dated 18 February 2025.
p. 6It granted Petitioner No. 2 liberty to apply within one year after attaining majority and directed KKRTC to consider any such application in accordance with law and pass an order.
pp. 6–7The Court did not direct that an appointment be granted; there was no order as to costs.
pp. 6–7Original Court PDF
PHARAHATHA BEGUMvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
