The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ appeal by a married daughter seeking compassionate appointment. The Court said her plea came after her 2005 death.
The Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench consisting of Justices B.M. Shyam Prasad and Shivashankar Amarannavar dismissed a writ appeal by a married daughter who sought appointment on compassionate grounds after her father’s death in 2005.
The court affirmed the Single Judge’s decision, noting that the appellant had concealed the earlier rejection of her application and failed to demonstrate dependency or immediate financial hardship.
The appellant, Smt. Laxmi, is the daughter of the late Nagappa Kittur, who served as an attender under the Chief Administrative Officer, District Court, Belagavi. After his death in service on June 21, 2005, she applied for employment on compassionate grounds.
ALSO READ: Compassionate Appointment Is Final, No Second Chance for Higher Post: Supreme Court
The Registrar General of the High Court rejected her application on November 21, 2007, on the basis that, being a married daughter, she was ineligible under Rule 3 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996. That rejection was communicated to and personally served on the appellant on December 26, 2007.
Despite receiving that communication, the appellant filed W.P. No. 6430/2008 in 2008, stating that her application was still pending and seeking a direction for its consideration. Because the earlier rejection was not disclosed in that petition, the court granted her permission to submit a fresh representation.
That subsequent representation was also rejected in 2016, giving rise to the present challenge.
Counsel for the appellant argued that a married daughter should be treated as a dependent and pointed to amendments to the rules that now allow appointment of married daughters on compassionate grounds. He asked the court to allow the appeal.
Counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the appellant’s claim had already been considered and denied in 2007 and that she had “suppress[ed] the said rejection of her application” when she filed the 2008 petition.
They further contended that, under the rules in force at the relevant time, a married daughter living with her husband’s family could not be regarded as dependent on her father and was therefore ineligible.
The Bench observed that the appellant had collected her original documents in January 2008 following the first rejection, yet later filed a petition alleging she had received no communication.
The court recorded,
“The appellant petitioner suppressing the earlier rejection has filed writ petition on 15.04.2008… in the said petition, the appellant-petitioner has not stated regarding rejection of her application.”
On whether married daughters qualify as dependents, the court relied on earlier Division Bench authority in Mrs. Megha J. vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and another, which applied the Supreme Court’s reasoning in State of Maharashtra vs. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate.
The court quoted,
“A married daughter residing in the matrimonial home ordinarily cannot be treated as a dependent on her father… Our scriptures injunct ‘bharta rakshati yavvane…’ literally meaning that it is the duty of husband to provide maintenance to his dependent wife.”
The Bench stressed that compassionate appointments are intended to relieve immediate financial distress.
It found that the long delay more than two decades since the employee’s death weakened any claim of urgency,
“During this extended period, the financial circumstances and needs of the petitioner’s family may have undergone significant changes. The initial urgency and immediacy of the financial constraints experienced by the family may no longer be as pressing or relevant after such a prolonged period.”
The court added that if a family has remained self-sufficient over such a long time, the purpose of providing “immediate financial relief” is no longer served.
The court concluded that the appellant did not satisfy the eligibility requirements and therefore had no legal entitlement to appointment on compassionate grounds.
The Court added,
“The writ Court has rightly held that the appellant-petitioner does not possess eligibility criteria and she has no legal right… We are not persuaded to allow the appeal.”
Finding no merit in the appeal, the Bench dismissed it.