Holding

The Supreme Court held that eligibility for compassionate appointment is governed by the rules in force at the time the application is considered, and the appellants were ineligible under the amended Rule 5, so their appointments were lawfully cancelled.

Summary

The appellants, who had been appointed on compassionate grounds after the death of their parents, challenged the cancellation of their appointments, arguing that the pre‑amendment rules allowing a minor to apply within one year of attaining majority should apply. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal and the High Court held that the appellants were ineligible under the amended Rule 5, which required an application within one year of the parent’s death and that the applicant be 18 years old at the time of filing. The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, as amended in 1999 and 2002, and held that the applicable norms are those in force at the date of consideration of the application, not at the date of death. It affirmed that compassionate appointment is a concession, not a vested right, and the criteria of the amended Rule 5 must be satisfied. Consequently, the Court endorsed the Tribunal and High Court decisions and dismissed the appeals, confirming the cancellation of the appointments.

Issues considered

What is the applicable rule for determining eligibility for compassionate appointment – the provisions in force at the time of the deceased's death or those in force at the time of application consideration?
Do the amended provisions of Rule 5 (effective 1 April 1999) disqualify the appellants who applied after attaining majority beyond one year of the parent’s death?
Does the transitory provision in Rule 9(3) of the 2002 amendment extend the time limit for such applications?
Is compassionate appointment a vested right or a discretionary concession subject to the prevailing rules?

Subjects

compassionate appointmentKarnataka Civil Services RulesRule 5Rule 9eligibilityservice lawconstitutional equalityArticles 14 and 16appointment cancellation

Judgment

[2020] 3 S.C.R. 1177 1177

N. C. SANTHOSH A
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 9280-9281 of 2014)
MARCH 04, 2020 B
[R. BANUMATHI, A. S. BOPANNA
AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Service Law:
Appointment – Compassionate appointment – Cancelled on C
finding that the appointments were made de-hors the provisions of
Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds)
Rules, 1996 as amended w.e.f. 01.04.1999 – Application by the
appointees challenging the cancellation – Tribunal found that the
applicants were ineligible under the Rules – Order of the Tribunal
D
was confirmed by High Court – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held:
Norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the application
should be the basis for consideration of claim of compassionate
appointment – Compassionate appointment is a concession and not
a right – Criteria laid down in the Rules must be satisfied – The
application of the appellants should have been rejected at the E
threshold as being not in conformity with proviso to Rule 5 –
Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds)
Rules, 1996 – r. 5 proviso.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. While Rule 5 of Karnataka Civil Services F
(Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 as it
originally stood, enabled a minor dependant to apply within one
year after attaining majority, the Rule making authority with the
amendment effected from 01.04.1999 stipulated an outer limit of
one year from the date of death of the government servant for G
making application for compassionate appointment. The validity
of the amended Rules is not challenged. Following the
amendment, the norms clearly suggest that the earlier provision
which enabled a minor dependant to apply on attaining majority
(may be years after the death of the government servant), has
H
1177
1178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 3 S.C.R.

A been done away with. The object of the amended provision is to
ensure that no application is filed beyond one year of the death of
the government employee. The consequence of prohibiting
application by a minor beyond one year from the date of death of
the parent can only mean that the appellants were undeserving
beneficiaries of compassionate appointment as they attained
B
majority well beyond one year of the death of their respective
parents. [Para 10][1185-C-E]
2. In the present cases, when the government employee
died, the appellants were minor and they had turned 18, well
beyond one year of death of the parent. The dependants attained
C majority after a gap of 2-6 years from the respective date of death
of their parents and then they applied for appointment. By the
time, the dependent children turned 18, the amended provisions
became operational w.e.f. 01.04.1999. As such their belated
application for compassionate appointment should have been
D rejected at the threshold as being not in conformity with proviso
to Rule 5. [Para 11][1185-F-G]
3. The cases of the appellants are not covered by the
transitory provision of Rule 9(3) introduced by the notification
dated 28.5.2002. Rule 9(3) suggests that it is a transitory provision
E granting extension of time for applying for compassionate
appointment. But the transitory provision excludes application
filed in contravention of Rule 5, as amended in 1999. In other
words, applications filed by minor dependants who had not attained
majority within one year from the date of death of the government
servants will be in contravention of Rule 5. [Para 13][1186-C-D]
F
4. It is well settled that for all government vacancies equal
opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as is mandated
under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However
appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependant of
a deceased employee is an exception to the said norms.
G Compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right and
the criteria laid down in the Rules must be satisfied by all aspirant.
[Para 14][1186-E-F]

H
N. C. SANTHOSH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. 1179

5. It can not be said that the appellants claim should be A
considered under the unamended provisions of the Rules
prevailing on the date of death of the Government employee.
The norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the
application, should be the basis for consideration of claim for
compassionate appointment. A dependent of a government
B
employee, in the absence of any vested right accruing on the
death of the government employee, can only demand
consideration of his/her application. He is however disentitled to
seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable,
on the day of death of the government employee. The appellants
were ineligible for compassionate appointment when their C
applications were considered and the unamended provisions of
Rule 5 of the Rules will not apply to them. [Paras 18, 20 and
21][1187-F; 1188-B-E]
Commissioner of Public Instructions and Others v. K.R.
Vishwanath (2005) 7 SCC 206 : [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR D
1042 ; Steel Authority of India Limited v. Madhusudan
Das & Ors. (2008) 15 SCC 560 : [2008] 14 SCR 824 ;
SBI v. Raj Kumar (2010) 11 SCC 661 ; MCB Gramin
Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh (2014) 13 SCC 583 : [2013]
10 SCR 1 ; State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. v. Shashi
Kumar (2019) 3 SCC 653 : [2019] 2 SCR 432 – E
relied on.
Canara Bank & Anr. v. M. Mahesh Kumar (2015) 7
SCC 412 : [2015] 9 SCR 724 ; State Bank of India &
Ors. v. Sheo Shankar Tewari (2019) 5 SCC 600 : [2019]
3 SCR 718 – referred to. F

Case Law Reference
[2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 1042 relied on Para 12
[2008] 14 SCR 824 relied on Para 14
G
(2010) 11 SCC 661 relied on Para 15
[2013] 10 SCR 1 relied on Para 15
[2015] 9 SCR 724 referred to Para 16
[2019] 3 SCR 718 referred to Para 17
H
[2019] 2 SCR 432 relied on Para 19
1180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 3 S.C.R.

A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 9280-
9281 of 2014.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.05.2012 and 09.11.2012
of the Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ
Petition No. 43199/2011 (S-KAT) and in Review Petition No. 750 of
B 2012 respectively.
With
Cvil Appeal No. 1996 of 2020 and Civil Appeal No. 1997 of 2020.
Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv., Shanthkumar V. Mahale, Pradeep Sawkar,
C Syed Faizan Ali, Amith J., Rajesh Mahale, S. J. Amith, Purushottam
Sharma Tripathi, Ms. Aishwarya Kumar, Mukesh Singh, V. N.
Raghupathy, Shubhranshu Padhi, Ashish Yadav, Rakshit Jain, Advs. for
the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D HRISHIKESH ROY, J.
1. Leave granted in SLP(C) No. 34878/2013 and SLP(C) No.
24169/2015.
2. The appellants here were the beneficiary of compassionate
appointments. But on the discovery that their appointments were made
E dehors the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on
Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 as amended w.e.f. 1.04.1999,
(hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”), those appointments came to be
cancelled. The amendment to the proviso to Rule 5 stipulated that in
case of a minor dependant of the deceased government employee, he/
F she must apply within one year from the date of death of the government
servant and he must have attained the age of eighteen years on the day
of making the application. Before amendment, the minor dependant was
entitled to apply till one year of attaining majority.
3. When their service was terminated the aggrieved appointees
G approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore
(hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”). But the Tribunal found that
appellants were ineligible for appointment under the Rules and accordingly
dismissed the related applications. The resultant writ petitions were
dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, leading to the
present appeals.
H
N. C. SANTHOSH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. 1181
[HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

4. We have heard Ms. Kiran Suri, learned Senior Counsel A
appearing for the appellant in the Appeal arising from the SLP (C)
No.34878 of 2013, Mr. Shanthkumar V. Mahale, learned counsel
appearing in C.A. Nos.9280-9281 of 2014 and in the appeal arising out
of the SLP (C) No.24169 of 2015. The State of Karnataka is represented
by Mr. V.N. Raghupathy and Mr S Padhi, the Learned Counsel in the
B
respective appeals.
5. Assailing the adverse decision of the Tribunal as affirmed by
the High Court, the appellants contend that they have been legitimately
appointed on compassionate basis and have rendered service without
any blemish and therefore, the authority should not be permitted to apply
the amended provisions and cancel the appointment on the ground that C
the appointees were ineligible to apply for compassionate appointment.
Ms. Kiran Suri, the learned senior counsel argues that Rule 5 is only
procedural and is not mandatory and therefore, compassionate
appointment of the dependant children who attained majority beyond
one year of death of the government employee, should not be construed D
to be invalid. According to the appellants, their cases have to be considered
under the unamended Rules which permits a minor dependant to apply
for compassionate appointment within one year of attaining majority.
Describing Rule 9 as a transitional provision whereunder the period for
making application has been changed through various amendments, the
counsel for the appellants argue that retrospective application of the E
amended provisions should not lead to cancellation of appointment.
Moreover, since compassionate appointment was offered without any
misrepresentation by the beneficiary, the appellants should not be
rendered jobless now on the ground of non-eligibility of the appointees.
6. The respondents, on the other hand, argue that the norms F
applicable at the stage of consideration is relevant and here as the
appellants had not attained majority within one year from the death of
the government employee, they were ineligible to seek compassionate
appointment under the amended provisions of the compassionate Rules.
The Government counsel contend that since compassionate appointment G
is an exception to the general Rule governing appointment in the service
of the State, the same has to be in conformity with the prescribed Rules
and those ineligible under the Rules cannot ask for continuation of the
illegal appointment. The respondents also argue that the government
has the power to rectify the mistake and to recall the illegal appointment
H
1182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 3 S.C.R.

A orders as the appellants were appointed erroneously, despite there
ineligibility.
7. The essential details of the appellants can be seen in the
following chart:-
Case C.A. Nos. 9280- CA @ SLP(C) No. CA @ SLP(C)
B 9281/2014 34878/2013 No. 24169/2015

(N.C. Santhosh) (Sayeda F. Banao) (Sri Santosh)

Deceased Govt. servant N.H. Chandra Gowda Shakila Jabeena Ara M. Indranna
Begum Reddy

Dependant/Appointee N.C. Santhosh Sayeda Farheen Banao Sri Santosh

C Date of Birth 25.6.1982 12.5.1982 24.3.1983

Parents Death 25.1.1998 24.5.1994 11.11.1998

Minor’s Majority 25.6.2000 12.5.2000 24.3.2001

Application for First, mother applied First father applied but 1.7.2001
compassionate on 28.2.1998. Then was rejected on
appointment. after attaining 12.6.1997. Then after
D majority appellant attaining majority
applied on appellant applied on
29.06.2000. 25.09.2000.

Appointment 25.8.2000 20.9.2001 14.12.2004

Removal 4.11.2003 I. 15.6.2005 but 18.2.2007
reinstated on 4.01.2006
E on Tribunal’s order.

II. Removed again on
28.12.2006 and relieved
on 2.1.2007 on
disciplinary ground

Karnataka 2.7.2008 21.4.2009 – 15.6.2011
Administrative Disciplinary action not
F Tribunal warranted but
termination upheld for
unmerited appointment.

Bangalore High Court 22.5.2012 (W.P.) and 14.8.2013 2.12.2011
9.11.2012 (Re vie w)

G 8.1 Some additional aspect needs to be noticed to complete the
factual details pertaining to the appeal arising out of the SLP(C) No.
34878/2013 filed by Sayeda F. Banao. In this case, on the death of the
appellant’s mother on 24.5.1994, first, a request was made by the
appellant’s father to provide him appointment on compassionate ground
which however, was rejected by the authorities on 12.6.1997. Thereafter,
H
N. C. SANTHOSH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. 1183
[HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

the appellant after attaining majority on 12.5.2000 made an application A
for compassionate appointment on 25.9.2000 and was appointed as a
Second Division Assistant on 20.9.2001. She was served with a show
cause notice dated 2.6.2005 on the ground that she had not attained the
age of 18 years within one year from the date of death of the government
servant and accordingly, her service was terminated vide Order dated
B
15.6.2005.
8.2 Challenging the order of termination, the appellant filed
application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 20.10.2005
set aside the termination order holding that the service of the appellant
was terminated without holding proper enquiry under Rule 11 of
Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 C
and directed her reinstatement, reserving liberty to the State in
accordance with law.
8.3 Pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, the appellant was
reinstated in service on 04.01.2006. Thereafter, an enquiry was initiated
against her under Rule 11 of the said Rules alleging misconduct and D
misrepresentation of her age at the time of submission of her application
seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The appellant was then
removed from the service by order dated 28.12.2006 and when her appeal
was rejected by the Appellate Authority on 30.08.2007, she again
approached the Tribunal. In her OA No.4901/2007, the Tribunal vide its E
order dated 21.04.2009 found that there was no misconduct on the part
of the appellant. Nevertheless the Tribunal affirmed the cancellation of
the appointment with the finding that the appointment was made de hors
the amended Rule 5 of the KCS (Appointment on Compassionate
Grounds) Rules and thus, the cancellation of appointment was found to
be justified by the Tribunal. The appellant’s review petition was also F
dismissed by order dated 03.12.2009. The resultant writ petition filed by
the appellant challenging cancellation of her appointment and the order
of the Tribunal were dismissed, by the High Court under the impugned
judgment dated 14.08.2013.
8.4 Though, certain additional factual details are seen in the appeal G
relating to Sayeda Farheen Banao, but core issue is no different from
the other cases. The question here too is whether her appointment on
compassionate ground, was in violation of the Karnataka Civil Services
(Appointment on Compassionate Ground) Rules, 1998.
H
1184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 3 S.C.R.

A 9. The action taken by the respondents in cancellation of
appointment is under the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services
(Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 and therefore
relevant Rules are extracted hereinbelow:-
Unamended Rule 5
B “Every dependant of a deceased Government servant, seeking
appointment under these rules shall make an application
within one year from the date of death of the Government
servant, in such form, as may be notified by the Government,
from time to time, to the Head of the Department under whom
C the deceased Government Servant was working.
Provided that in the case of a minor, application shall be made
within a period of one year after attaining majority.”
Following amendment w.e.f. 1.04.1999 the proviso to Rule 5
reads:-
D
“....................................................................................
Provided that in the case of a minor, he must 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.
E
Provided further that nothing in the first proviso shall apply
to 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
F
Grounds) (Amendment) Rules, 1998.”
Following the 28.05.2002 amendment, Rule 9(3) reads as under:-
“.....................................................................................
9(3) : All applications for appointment on compassionate
G grounds made between the 13 th day of September 1996 and
the date of commencement of the Karnataka Civil Services
(Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) 3 rd Amendment
Rules, 2002 by the dependents of Government servants who
died on or after 20th October 1989 (other than the application
H made by such dependents after the first day of April, 1999
N. C. SANTHOSH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. 1185
[HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

and till the date of such commencement in contravention of A
the first proviso to Rule 5 which are :
(i) Rejected on the ground that they were not made within
the period specified in Rule 5, or
(ii) Pending on such date of commencement, shall be
deemed to have been made within the period specified B
under Rule 5 and shall be reconsidered or as the case may
be considered for appointment subject to other provisions
of these Rules.”
10. While Rule 5 as it originally stood, enabled a minor dependant
to apply within one year after attaining majority, the Rule making authority C
with the amendment effected from 01.04.1999 stipulated an outer limit
of one year from the date of death of the government servant for making
application for compassionate appointment. The validity of the amended
Rules is not challenged in any of the present proceedings. Following the
amendment the norms clearly suggest that the earlier provision which D
enabled a minor dependant to apply on attaining majority (may be years
after the death of the government servant), has been done away with.
The object of the amended provision is to ensure that no application is
filed beyond one year of the death of the government employee. The
consequence of prohibiting application by a minor beyond one year from
the date of death of the parent can only mean that the appellants were E
undeserving beneficiaries of compassionate appointment as they attained
majority well beyond one year of the death of their respective parents.
11. In all these cases, when the government employee died, the
appellants were minor and they had turned 18, well beyond one year of
death of the parent. As can be seen from the details in the chart, the F
dependants attained majority after a gap of 2-6 years from the respective
date of death of their parents and then they applied for appointment. By
the time, the dependent children turned 18, the amended provisions became
operational w.e.f. 01.04.1999. As such their belated application for
compassionate appointment should have been rejected at the threshold G
as being not in conformity with proviso to Rule 5. The appellants applied
for compassionate appointment (after attainment of majority), well beyond
the stipulated period of one year from the date of death of the parent,
and therefore, those applications should not have been entertained being
in contravention of Rules.
H
1186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 3 S.C.R.

A 12. The provision of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment
on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 was considered in
Commissioner of Public Instructions and Others vs K.R.
Vishwanath1. Speaking for the division bench, Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat
noted that the effect of the amended second proviso is that, unless the
application is pending at the time of commencement of the Amendment
B
Rules, the same can have no bearing on the claim for compassionate
appointment. Thus, belated application filed by the dependant on attaining
majority beyond one year from the date of death of the government
employee would not be a valid application, consistent with the provisions
of the Rules.
C 13. Insofar as the appellant’s claim to legitimacy of appointment
on the basis of Rule 9(3) of the Rules, a reading of Rule 9(3) suggests
that it is a transitory provision granting extension of time for applying for
compassionate appointment. But the transitory provision excludes
application filed in contravention of Rule 5, as amended in 1999. In other
D words, applications filed by minor dependants who had not attained
majority within one year from the date of death of the government servants
will be in contravention of Rule 5. Therefore, we are of the considered
view that the cases of the appellants are not covered by the transitory
provision of Rule 9(3) introduced by the notification dated 28.5.2002.
E 14. It is well settled that for all government vacancies equal
opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as is mandated under
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However appointment on
compassionate ground offered to a dependant of a deceased employee
is an exception to the said norms. In Steel Authority of India Limited
vs. Madhusudan Das & Ors. 2 It was remarked accordingly that
F compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right and the criteria
laid down in the Rules must be satisfied by all aspirant.
15. This Court in SBI vs. Raj Kumar3 while reiterating that no
aspirant has a vested right to claim compassionate appointment, declared
that the norms that are in force, when the application is actually considered,
G will be applicable. The employer’s right to modify the scheme depending
on its policies was recognized in this judgment. Similarly in MCB Gramin
Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh4 this Court reiterated that compassionate
1
(2005) 7 SCC 206
2
(2008) 15 SCC 560
3
(2010) 11 SCC 661
H 4
(2014) 13 SCC 583
N. C. SANTHOSH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. 1187
[HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

appointment has to be considered in accordance with the prevalent A
scheme and no aspirant can claim that his case should be considered as
per the scheme existing on the date of death of the Government employee.
16. However in Canara Bank & Anr. vs. M. Mahesh Kumar5
in the context of major shift in policy, whereunder, instead of
compassionate appointment (envisaged by the scheme dated 8.5.1993), B
ex gratia payment was proposed (under the circular dated 14.02.2005),
the Court adopted a different approach. Noticing the extinguishment of,
the right to claim appointment, this Court held the “dying in harness
scheme” which was prevalent on the death of the employee, be the
basis for consideration.
C
17. A two judges bench headed by Justice Uday U. Lalit noticed
the Supreme Court’s view in SBI vs. Raj Kumar (supra) and MCB
Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh (supra) on one side and the
contrary view in Canara Bank & Anr. vs. M. Mahesh Kumar (supra)
and felt the necessity of resolution of the conflicting question on whether
the norms applicable on the date of death or on the date of consideration D
of application should apply. Accordingly, in State Bank of India & Ors.
vs. Sheo Shankar Tewari6 the Court referred the matter for consideration
by a larger Bench so that the conflicting views could be reconciled.
18. The above discussion suggest that the view taken in Canara
Bank & Anr. vs. M. Mahesh Kumar (supra) is to be reconciled with E
the contrary view of the coordinate bench, in the two earlier judgments.
Therefore, notwithstanding the strong reliance placed by the appellants
counsel on Canara Bank & Anr. vs. M. Mahesh Kumar (supra) as
also the opinion of the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court
in Uday Krishna Naik vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.7, it can not be F
said that the appellants claim should be considered under the unamended
provisions of the Rules prevailing on the date of death of the Government
employee.
19. In the most recent judgment in State of Himachal Pradesh
& Anr. vs. Shashi Kumar8 the earlier decisions governing the principles G
of compassionate appointment were discussed and analysed. Speaking
for the bench, Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud reiterated that appointment
5
(2015) 7 SCC 412
6
(2019) 5 SCC 600
7
MANU/KA/0203/1999 (Writ Petition No.37931 of 1998)
8
(2019) 3 SCC 653 H
1188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 3 S.C.R.

A to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis
of principles in accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and
compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule. The
Dependent of a deceased government employee are made eligible by
virtue of the policy on compassionate appointment and they must fulfill
the norms laid down by the State’s policy.
B
20. Applying the law governing compassionate appointment culled
out from the above cited judgments, our opinion on the point at issue is
that the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application,
should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate
appointment. A dependent of a government employee, in the absence of
C any vested right accruing on the death of the government employee, can
only demand consideration of his/her application. He is however disentitled
to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable, on the
day of death of the government employee.
21. In view of the foregoing opinion, we endorse the Tribunal’s
D view as affirmed by the High Court of Karnataka to the effect that the
appellants were ineligible for compassionate appointment when their
applications were considered and the unamended provisions of Rule 5
of the Rules will not apply to them. Since no infirmity is found in the
impugned judgments, the appeals are found devoid of merit and the same
E are dismissed.

Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals dismissed.

F

G

H