Subtitle: The Court set aside the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal’s order and directed the State authorities to reconsider the petitioner’s claim under the 1996 Rules within three months.
Court Allows Married Daughter’s Plea
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that a married daughter compassionate appointment claim cannot be rejected simply because the applicant is married. If the daughter lived with and depended on the deceased government employee, the authorities must consider her application under the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996.
A Division Bench of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice Rajesh Rai K delivered the judgment on June 15, 2026, in Smt. Savitha.R v. State of Karnataka & Others, Writ Petition No. 3765 of 2022 (S-KSAT).
Tribunal Order Challenged
The petitioner challenged the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal’s order dated January 21, 2022, in Application No. 1346/2021.
The Tribunal upheld an endorsement dated March 12, 2021, rejecting her request for compassionate appointment. The authorities refused her claim because she was a married daughter and her mother received a government pension after retirement.
Father Died While In Service
The petitioner’s father worked as a Group-D Cook at the Pre-metric ST Boys’ Hostel in Nelagatenahatti, Challakere Taluk.
He died in service on February 25, 2014. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on December 27, 2014, within the prescribed time.
Rules Changed In 2021
When the petitioner filed her application, the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 did not recognize married daughters as eligible family members.
However, the State amended the Rules on April 9, 2021. The amendment expanded the definition of “family” to include married, unmarried, divorced, and widowed daughters who depended on and lived with the deceased government servant.
Petitioner Relied On Amended Rules
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the amended Rules entitled her to consideration for compassionate appointment.
He also submitted that the authorities should examine her eligibility under Rule 4, including the prescribed income limit, instead of rejecting the claim outright.
State Opposed The Petition
The State argued that officials had rejected the application before the amended Rules came into force.
It also contended that the petitioner could not claim compassionate appointment because her mother was a retired government employee receiving pension.
High Court Found Tribunal’s Decision Unsustainable
The High Court held that the Tribunal committed a serious error while dismissing the petitioner’s application.
The Bench noted that the petitioner had submitted her application within the period prescribed under the 1996 Rules. It further observed that the 2021 amendment substituted the definition of “family,” making the revised provision applicable to eligible married daughters.
Court Relied On Earlier Judgments
The Bench relied on its earlier decision in W.P. No. 15961/2022, decided on August 23, 2024, which examined the effect of the 2021 amendment.
The Court also referred to Smt. Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranik v. State of Karnataka and Others, ILR 2021 KAR 5256. In that case, the Court declared the exclusion of married daughters from compassionate appointment unconstitutional.
Supreme Court Decision Distinguished
The State relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bheemesh.
However, the High Court clarified that the amendment in Bheemesh introduced a new provision by insertion. In contrast, Karnataka amended the 1996 Rules through substitution. Therefore, the Bench held that the Supreme Court’s ruling did not govern the present case.
Marriage Alone Cannot Defeat A Claim
The Court also referred to the decision in Smt. Latha H.R. It reiterated that authorities cannot reject an application solely because the applicant is a married daughter.
According to the Bench, the amended Rules recognize eligible married daughters as dependents. Therefore, they must receive equal consideration for compassionate appointment.
Pension Cannot Automatically Disqualify The Applicant
The High Court rejected the State’s argument that the petitioner became ineligible because her mother received a pension.
Instead, the Court directed the authorities to examine the claim under Rules 4(1)(b), 5, and 6 of the 1996 Rules. They must assess the family’s financial condition instead of rejecting the application on a single ground.
Tribunal Failed To Give Adequate Reasons
The High Court observed that the Tribunal had accepted the settled legal position that a married daughter could seek compassionate appointment.
Despite that finding, the Tribunal failed to explain why the petitioner did not qualify under the Rules. The Bench held that this reasoning was insufficient.
Court Quashes Rejection And Orders Fresh Consideration
The High Court allowed the writ petition. It quashed both the Tribunal’s order dated January 21, 2022, and the endorsement dated March 12, 2021.
Finally, the Court directed the State authorities to reconsider the petitioner’s married daughter compassionate appointment claim under Rules 4, 5, and 6 of the 1996 Rules. The authorities must also follow the principles laid down in the August 23, 2024 judgment and complete the exercise within three months.
