Holding

An application for compassionate appointment filed after the prescribed one‑year period is time‑barred; the amendment rules cannot be construed to condone delay, and compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but must comply with the applicable rules.

Summary

The respondent, K.R. Vishwanath, applied for a compassionate appointment under the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules after his father, a government servant, died when he was an infant. His first application was filed more than a year after he attained majority and was rejected for being time‑barred; subsequent applications were also rejected, including one after the 1998 amendment to the Rules. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal and the High Court directed that his case be considered without regard to the limitation period, holding that the compassionate appointment scheme should be applied liberally. The State appealed, arguing that the Rules prescribe a strict one‑year limit and that the amendment does not retrospectively validate delayed applications. The Supreme Court held that the limitation period in Rule 5 is mandatory, the amendment cannot be construed to condone delay, and compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but must follow the prescribed rules. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal and High Court orders and allowed the appeal without ordering any costs.

Issues considered

Whether an application for compassionate appointment filed after the one‑year period from attaining majority is barred by Rule 5 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1990 and its 1998 amendment.
Whether the 1998 amendment can be applied retrospectively to condone delay in filing the application.
Whether compassionate appointment constitutes a legal right or is subject to the procedural limitations prescribed in the Rules.

Subjects

compassionate appointmentlimitation periodKarnataka Civil Services Rulesminor dependentpublic service recruitmentadministrative lawcondonation of delay

Judgment

A COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS AND ORS.
v.
K.R. VISHWANA TH

AUGUST 30, 2005

B [ARIJIT PASAYA. T AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.]

Service Law :

Compassionate appointment-Minor son ofdeceased government servant
C applyingfor compassionate appointment after more than one year ofattaining
majority-Rule applicable providing for making application within one year
aft.'!r attaining majority-Held, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed
as a matter of right but has to be made in accordance with rules, regulations
and administrative instructions-In the facts, held, application beyond
D time and rejection of application proper-Karnataka Civil Services
(Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1990 & Karnataka Civil
Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Amendment) Rules,
1998-Rule 5.

Respondent was only two months old when his father who was a
E government servant died. Respondent attained majority on 20.10.1995
and submitted applicatio!l seeking appointment on compassionate grounds
on 2.12.1996 under Rule 5 of Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on
Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1990 which was rejected by appellant on
J 1/13.11.1997 on the ground that application had not been filed within one
year of attaining majority. Another application made by respondent on
F
.
22.4.1998 was not entertained. Amendments were made to the 1990 Rules
by the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds)
(Amendment) Rules, 1998 which were made operative with effect from
1.4.1999. Respondent filed another application on 29.11.1999 which was
rejected by the appellant stating that no application was pending when
G the Amendment Rules, 1998 came into force and, therefore, the amendment
Rult>s had no application. Respondent approached Tribunal questioning
the order of rejection, which was allowed and the Tribunal directed
appellants to consider the case of respondent for appointment on
compassionate grounds without regard to any period of limitation,
H Appellants filed Writ Petition challenging order passed by tribunal which
1042
COMMR. OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS v. K.R. VISHWANATH 1043

was dismissed by the High Court holding that respondent was entitled to A
appointment on compassionate grounds. Hence this appeal.

Appellant contended that the Courts below failed to notice relevant
-" provisions and proceeded on factually and legally erroneous premises;
that the view taken would make belated application deemed to have been B
made within time which would be clearly contrary to the applicable
provisions; and that the view of High Court is indefensible in view of the
object of compassionate appointment.

Respondent contended that the Rules are merely directory; and that
technical view should not be taken to as the object of compassionate C

- appointment is to provide sustenance to members of a deceased government
servant.

Allowing the appeal, the Court
D
HELD: I. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another
source of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement
taking into consideration the fact to the death of employee while in service
leaving his family without any means of livelihood. Jn such cases the object
is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis. Such appointments
should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. E
But such appointments on compassionate ground have to be made in
accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking
into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased.
Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of
right. The fact that the ward was a minor at the time of death of his father F
is no ground, unless the scheme itself envisage specifically otherwise, to
state that as and when such minor becomes a major he can be appointed
without any time consciousness or limit. [1048-B, C, DJ

State of Haryana and Ors. v. Rani Devi & Anr., AIR (1996) SC 2445,
Life Insurance Corporation ofIndia v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar (Mrs.) and G
Anr., (1994] 2 SCC 718, Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors.,
[1994] 4 SCC 138, Smt. Sushma Gosain and Ors. v. Union ofIndia and Ors.,
[1998] 4 SCC 468, Phoolwati (Smt.) v. Union ofIndia and Ors., (1991] Supp.
2 SCC 689, Union of India and Ors. v. Bhagwan Singh. (1995] 6 SCC 476,
' Director of Education (Secondary) and Anr. v. Pushpendra Kumar and Ors., H
1044 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 2 S.C.R:

A (1998) 5 SCC 192 and State of UP. and Ors. v. Paras Nath, [1998) 2 SCC
412, relied on.

2.1. A bare reading of the second proviso of Rule 5 of the Karnataka
Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Amendment)
B Rules, 1998 makes the position that unless the application is pending at
the time of commencement of the Amendment Rules, the same can have
no application. If the second proviso has no application, then the question
of any subsequent application being considered does not arise. The provision
is clear and unambiguous. That being so, there was no scope for introducing
a concept of condonation of delay as has been done by the Tribunal and
C the High Court. If the view is accepted it would mean that a belated

-
application will be deemed to have been done within time. That would be
in effect introducing a deeming provision by interpretative process which
is not permissible. [1047-B, CJ

.D 2.2. The Tribunal and the High Court were not justified in directing
that the respondent's case be considered for appointment in terms terms
of the Rules without taking note of the limitation prescribed. [1049-CJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9132 of2003.

E From the Judgment and Order dated 3.6.2002 of the Kamataka High
Court in W.P. No. 19625 of 2002.

Anil K. Mishra and Sanjay R. Hedge for the Appellants.

F S.N. Bhat and D.P. Chaturvedi for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. : The appellant-State and its functionaries call
in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division
G Bench of the Karnataka High Court holding that the respondent
was entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds. By the
impugned judgment the view expressed by the Kamataka Administrative
Tribunal (in short 'Tribunal') about such entitlement vf the respondent was
upheld.
F
H
COMMR. OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS v. K.R. V!SHWANATH (PASAYAT, J.J 1045

Factual position is almost undisputed and needs to be noted in briei. A

Respondent's father Ramachandra Narayan Bhat who was a government
servant died on 21.12.1977. The respondent was born on 20.10. 1977 and was
hardly two months old at the time when his father expired. He attained
majority on 20.10.1995. He submitted an application on 2.12.1996 seeking B
appointment on compassionate grounds purportedly under the Kamataka
Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1990 (in
short the 'Rules'). The said application on 11/13.11.1997 was rejected on the
ground that the application had not been filed within time i.e. within one year
of attaining majority. Another application was tiled on 22.4.1998 which was
not entertained. Certain amendments were made to the Rules by the Karnataka C

- Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Amendment)
Rules, 1998 (in short 'Amendment Rules') which were operative with effect
from 1.4.1999. Respondent tiled another application on 29. 11.1999. The same
was rejected on 9.6.2000 by stating that no application was pending on the
date when Amendment Rules came into force and, therefore, the Rules as D
amended had no application to his case. The respondent approached the
Tribunal questioning the order ofrejection. By order dated 19.9.2001 Tribunal
allowed the petition and directed the present appellants to consider the case
of the respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds without regard
to any period of limitation referred to in the letter dated 9.6.2000.
E
The appellants questioned correctness of Tribu.nal's decision before the
High Court. As noted above, the High .Court dismissed the writ petition.

In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
the Tribunal and the High Court failed to notice the relevant provisions and F
proceeded on factually and legally erroneous premises, Rule 5 of the Rules
as it originally stood reads as follows:

"Every dependant of a deceased Government servant, seeking
appointment under these rules shall make an applicatio11 within one
year from the date of death of the Government servant, in such form, G
as may be notified by the Government, from time to time, to the Head
of the Department under whom the deceased Government Servant
was working.

Provided that in the case of a minor, application shall be made H
1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A within, a period of one year after attaining majority."

The said Rule was amended by the Amendment Rules w.e.f 1.4.1999
by substituting the existing proviso in the following manner:

"Provided that in the case of a minor, he must have make an
B
application within one year from the date of death of the Government
servant and he must have attained the age of eighteen years on the
date of making the application.

Provided further that nothing in the first proviso shall apply to
c an application made by the dependant of a deceased Government
Servant, after attaining majority and which was pending for
consideration on the date of commencement of the Karnataka Civil
Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Amendment)
Rules, 1998."
D
It is pointed out that the respondent had filed first application on
2.12.1996 which was rejected on 11113.11.1997. He filed another application
on 22.4.1998 which was also not entertained. The last application was filed
on 29.11.1999, obviously, after the Amendment Rules came into force. The
Tribunal and the High Court proceeded on the basis as if the application was
E pending when the amendment came into force w.e.f. 1.4.1999. the High Court
rightly noted that the effect of the amended first proviso is that in the case
of minor, he cannot make an application within one year from the date of
death of the government servant and he must have attained the age of eighteen
years on the date of making the application. The High Court was of the view
F that the second proviso makes it clear that nothing contained in the .first
proviso shall apply to the application made by the dependant of the deceased
government servant after attaining majority and which was pending for
consideration on the date of commencement of the amended Rules. It was held
that there can be no condonation of delay in making the application. Learned
counsel for the appellant pointed out that the view is clearly contrary to the
G applicable provisions and it would render the very purpose of enacting the
Rules. Factually, it was pointed out that there were elder members in the
respondent's family. Keeping in view the object of compassionate appointment,
the High Court's view is indefensible.

H In response, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Rules
COMMR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS v. K.R. VISHWANATH [PASAYAT, J.] 1047

·- are merely directory and even if it is conceded that there was no application A
pending that will not change the situation. No technical view Jhould be taken

-
as the object is to provide sustenance to distressed members of a deceased
government servant.

A bare reading of the second proviso makes the position that unless the B
application is pending at the time of comn1encement of the Amendment Rules,
the same can have no application. If the second proviso has no application,
then the question of any subsequent application being considered does not
arise. The provision is clear and unambiguous. That being so, there was no
scope for introducing a concept of condonation of delay as has been done by
the Tribunal and the High Court. If the view is accepted it would mean that C
a belated application will be deemed to have been done within time. That

- would be in effect introducing a deeming provision by interpretative process
which is not permissible.

Now comes the question of the object of compassionate D
appointment.

As was observed in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Rani Devi & Anr., AIR
( 1996) SC 2445, it need not be pointed om that the claim of person concerned

- for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premises that he
was dependant on the deceased-employee. Strictly this claim cannot be upheld
on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. However,
E

such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden
crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and
dies while in service. That is why it is necessary for the authorities to frame
rules, regulations or to issue such administrative orders which can stand the F
test of Articles 14 and 16. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be
claimed as a matter of right. Die-in harness Scheme cannot be made applicable
to all types of posts irrespective of the nature of service rendered by the
deceased-employee. In Rani Devi's case (supra) it was held that scheme
regarding appointment on compassionate ground if extended to all tyoes of
casual or au hoc employees including those who .worked as apprentices cannot G
be justified on constitutional grounds. In Life Insurance Corporation of India
v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar (Mrs.) and Anr., [1994] 2 SCC 718, it was
pointed out tliat High Courts and Administrative Tribunals cannot confer
benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to rr.ake appointments on
compassionate grounds when the regulations fi'amed in respect thereof do not H
1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A cover and contemplates such appointments. It was noted in Umesh Kumar
Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors., [1994] 4 SCC 138, that as a rule in
public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open
invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate
ground is not another source of recruitment but merely an· exception to the
B aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death of
employee while in service leaving his family without any means oflivelihood.
In such cases the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial
crisis. But such appointments on compassionate ground have to be made in
accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions· taking
into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased.
c
In Smt. Sushma Gosain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., [1989) 4
sec 468, it was observed that in all claims of appointment on compassionate
grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of
providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship
D due to death of the bread-earner in the family. Such appointments should,
therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. The fact
that the ward was a minor at the time of death of his father is no ground, unless
the scheme itself envisage specifically otherwise, to state that as and when
such minor becomes a major he can be appointed without any time
consciousness or limit. The above view was reiterated in Phoolwati (Smt.) v.
E Union of India and Ors., [1991) Supp 2 SCC 689, and Union of India and •
Ors. v. Bhagwan Singh, [1995] 6 SCC 476. In Director of Education
(Secondary) and Anr. v. Pushpendra Kumar and Ors., [1998] 5 SCC 192, it
was observed that in matter of compassionate appointment there cannot be
insistence for a particu Jar post. Out of purely humanitarian consideration and
F having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided
the family would not be able to make both ends Inf'et, provisions are made
for _giving appoint_ment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may
be eligible for appointment. Care has, however, to be taken that provision for
ground of compassionate employment which is in the nature of an exception
G to the general provisions does not unduly interfere with the right of those other
persons who are eligible for appointment to seek appointment against the post
which would have been available, but for the provision enabling appoin~ment
being made on compassionate grounds of the dependant of the deceased-
employee~ As it is in the nature of exception to the ge~eral provisions it cannot
substitute the provision to which it is an exception and thereby nullify the
H main provision by taking away completely the right conferred by the main
COMMR. OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS v. K.R. VISHWANATH [PASAYAT. J.] 1049

provision. A

In State of UP. and Ors. v. Paras Nath, [1998] 2 SCC 412, it was held
that the purpose of providing employment to the dependant of a Government
serv<.nt dying-in-harness in preference to anybody else is to mitigate hardship
caused to the family of the deceased on account of his unexpected death while B
in service. To alleviate the distress of the family, such appointments are
permissible on compassionate grounds provided there are Rules providing for
such appointments.

The ratio in Life Insurance Corporation of India's case (supra) is fully
applicable to the present case. C

Above being the position, the Tribunal and the High Court were not
justified in directing that the respondent's case be considered for appointment
in terms of the Rules without taking note of the limitation prescribed. The
judgments are set aside. The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs. D
Our interference shall not stand on the way of the respondent's case being
considered on the basis of applicable existing or future Rules as may be
applicable.

A.K.T. Appeal allowed.
E