Widowed Daughter-in-Law Is Outside Karnataka’s Compassionate-Appointment Rules As HC Directs State To Consider Including Her

Shivanna M.C., a government employee, died in service.

His son, Lakshmisha, applied for compassionate appointment but died while his application was pending.

The employee’s widow then sought compassionate appointment for Lakshmisha’s wife, Komala.

The authorities rejected the request because a daughter-in-law was not included in the applicable definition of “family.”

The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal set aside that rejection and directed the Government to consider Komala’s case. The State challenged the Tribunal’s order.

The Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 govern compassionate appointments. Rule 2(b) defines “family” by specifying the relatives eligible in the circumstances listed; it does not include a daughter-in-law. Rule 2A defines a dependent by reference to membership of the deceased employee’s family, dependency, co-residence and the conditions in Rule 4.

The Court also relied on Priyanka Halamani v. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC OnLine KAR 81, for the principle that the doctrine of reading down cannot be used to expand a statutory definition to include a category the text excludes.

The Court acknowledged that Komala’s circumstances were difficult: her father-in-law had died, her husband had died while his compassionate-appointment application was pending, and she sought to support herself and her mother-in-law.

But the Rules expressly defined the eligible family members and did not include a daughter-in-law. Because the definition was neither silent nor ambiguous, the Court held that it could not extend the category through interpretation or reading down. Any change to the definition was a matter for the State Government, not the Court.

It directed the State Government to consider whether to include a daughter-in-law in the definition of “family” under Rule 2(b). If the Government decides to include that category and implements the change, it must then consider Komala’s application, subject to her meeting the other eligibility requirements. The Court did not itself direct her appointment.