Karnataka HC Sets Aside Tribunal Order Rejecting Married Daughter's Compassionate Appointment Claim

The Karnataka High Court held that the 2021 amendment to the 1996 Rules, being a substitution and not an insertion, entitles married daughters to compassionate appointment even for deaths predating the amendment.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, comprising Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice Rajesh Rai K, on 15 June 2026 allowed a writ petition filed by Smt. Savitha R of Chitradurga, whose claim for compassionate appointment had been rejected twice — first by the Social Welfare Department and then by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal. The Bench held that the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 were amended in 2021 by way of substitution, and that such an amendment must be read as if it had always been part of the Rules. The rejection of Savitha's claim solely on the ground that she was a married daughter, and on the further ground that her mother was a retired Government servant drawing pension, was found to be legally unsustainable.

Father's Death in 2014, Application Filed the Same Year

Savitha's father was employed as a Cook, a Group-D post, at the Pre-metric ST Boys' Hostel, Nelagatenahatti, Challakere Taluk. He died in service on 25 February 2014. Savitha submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 27 December 2014, within the time prescribed under the Rules, 1996.

At the time of her father's death and at the time of her application, the Rules, 1996 did not include a married daughter within the definition of “family” for the purpose of compassionate appointment. Savitha was married as on the date of her father's death, a fact not in dispute before the Court.

The Social Welfare Department, through an endorsement dated 12 March 2021, rejected her request on two grounds: that she was a married daughter, and that her mother was a retired Government servant. Savitha challenged this endorsement before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application No. 1346/2021.

The Tribunal's Contradictory Order

The Tribunal, by its order dated 21 January 2022, rejected Savitha's application. What made the Tribunal's order particularly difficult to sustain was that the Tribunal itself had recorded a finding that married daughters are entitled to compassionate appointment. Despite arriving at that conclusion, the Tribunal gave no reason for still rejecting the application. The Bench before the High Court noted this internal contradiction squarely.

Savitha then filed Writ Petition No. 3765 of 2022 before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the Tribunal's order and to have her application considered afresh.

The Legal Question: Does the 2021 Amendment Apply to Pre-Amendment Deaths?

The central legal question was whether the notification dated 9 April 2021, which amended the Rules, 1996 to include daughters (unmarried, married, divorced, or widowed) within the definition of “family,” could benefit a person whose father had died in 2014, well before the amendment came into force.

The State, through its Additional Government Advocate Sri Harisha A.S., argued that the case had been rejected before the amended provision came into force, and that the application must be considered under the Rules as they stood on the date of the Government servant's death. The State also pressed the point that since Savitha's mother was a retired Government servant receiving pension, Savitha was not entitled to compassionate appointment.

Savitha's counsel, Sri Virupakshaiah P.H., countered that the 2021 amendment entitled her to have her case examined, and that the question of whether the family income under Rule 4 exceeded the prescribed threshold had never actually been examined by the authorities.

Substitution Versus Insertion: The Decisive Distinction

The Bench drew on the reasoning of a Co-ordinate Bench in W.P. No. 15961/2022, decided on 23 August 2024, which had addressed the same question at length. That judgment distinguished between two types of amendments to the Rules, 1996.

An earlier amendment, made by notification dated 11 July 2012, had inserted additional words into the Rules to include an unmarried brother of a deceased female unmarried Government servant. The Supreme Court, in the case referred to as Bheemesh, had held that this insertion-based amendment would not apply merely because an application was taken up for consideration after the amendment was issued. The amendment operated prospectively.

The 2021 amendment, however, was structurally different. It did not insert additional words into the existing clause. It substituted the entire clause defining “family” and “dependent of a deceased Government servant” with a new provision. The Co-ordinate Bench had held, and the present Bench agreed, that where an amendment is by way of substitution, the amended provision is to be read as if it was always part of the statute from the day the original Rule came into force. The ratio in Bheemesh was therefore inapplicable to Savitha's case.

The amended sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 now defines “family,” in the case of a deceased male married Government servant, to include his widow, son, and daughter (unmarried, married, divorced, or widowed) who were dependent upon him and living with him. The Bench reproduced the full text of the substituted provision and concluded that a married daughter squarely falls within this definition.

The Co-ordinate Bench had also relied on an earlier Karnataka High Court decision in Smt. Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranik v. State of Karnataka and Others, reported at ILR 2021 KAR 5256, which had struck down the restriction excluding married daughters from compassionate appointment as unconstitutional. The State Government's 2021 amendment followed that declaration. The present Bench adopted the same line of reasoning.

Mother's Pension Cannot Be a Standalone Ground for Rejection

The Bench also addressed the second ground of rejection: that Savitha's mother was a retired Government servant drawing pension. The Court held that this alone could not justify rejecting the claim outright. The correct course was to examine the family's income in terms of Rule 4(1)(b) and Rules 5 and 6 of the Rules, 1996, which set out the income threshold and the procedure for consideration. The authorities had never conducted that examination; they had simply refused to consider the application at all.

The Bench found that the Tribunal, having correctly identified the legal position on married daughters, had committed a grave error by rejecting the application without providing any reason for doing so. The order was legally indefensible on its face.

Order

The Division Bench allowed the writ petition. The Tribunal's order dated 21 January 2022 in Application No. 1346/2021 was set aside. The endorsement dated 12 March 2021 issued by the sixth respondent, the Taluk Tribal Welfare Officer, Challakere Taluk, rejecting Savitha's application, was quashed.

The respondents were directed to consider Savitha's case for compassionate appointment in light of the order dated 23 August 2024 in W.P. No. 15961/2022 insofar as married daughters are concerned, and in terms of Rules 4, 5, and 6 of the Rules, 1996. The authorities were directed to pass an appropriate order within three months from 15 June 2026.