Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Plea of – Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules 1996 – rr. 2 and 3 – Mother of the original writ petitoner was employed with the Government of Karnataka as Second Division Assistant – She died on 25.03.2012 – After her death, her daughteroriginal writ petitioner initiated a divorce proceeding for divorce by mutual consent u/s.13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – On 20.03.2013, she obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent – On 21.03.2013, the original writ petitioner submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground – Her application was rejected – Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal also dismissed her application – However, the High Court directed the appellants to consider the application of the original writ petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment – The High Court held that a divorced daughter would fall in the same class of an unmarried or widowed daughter – On appeal, held: From Rule 2 and Rule 3 of the Rules, 1996 it can be seen that only ‘unmarried daughter’ and ‘widowed daughter ’ who were dependent upon the deceased female Government servant at the time of her death and living with her can be said to be ‘dependent’ of a deceased Government servant and are eligible for appointment on compassionate ground – Rule 2 and Rule 3 do not include ‘divorced daughter’ as eligible for appointment on compassionate ground and even as ‘dependent’ – The word ‘divorced daughter’ has been added subsequently by Amendment, 2021 – However, in the instant case, at the relevant time when the deceased employee died and when the original writ petitioner made an application for appointment on compassionate ground the ‘divorced daughter’ was not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground and the ‘divorced daughter’ was not within the definition of ‘dependent’ – Further, the chronology of dates and events i.e. on 20.03.2013 decree of divorce by mutual consent was obtained and on 21.03.2013 an application was submitted for appointment, the same would suggest that only for the purpose of getting appointment on compassionate ground the decree of divorce by mutual consent was obtained – Also, at the time when the deceased employee died she was a married daughter and therefore, also cannot be said to be ‘dependent’ as defined under Rule 2 of the Rules 1996 – Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court ought not to have directed the appellants to consider the application of the respondent herein for appointment on compassionate ground as ‘divorced daughter’ – Thus, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Applying the law laid down by this Court in N.C. Santhosh to the facts of the case on hand, this Court is of the opinion that as such the High Court has gone beyond Rule 2 and Rule 3 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 by directing the appellants to consider the application of the respondent herein for appointment on compassionate ground as ‘divorced daughter’. [Para 8][656-G-H]
2. From Rule 2 and Rule 3 it can be seen that only ‘unmarried daughter’ and ‘widowed daughter’ who were dependent upon the deceased female Government servant at the time of her death and living with her can be said to be ‘dependent’ of a deceased Government servant and that ‘an unmarried daughter’ and ‘widowed daughter’ only can be said to be eligible for appointment on compassionate ground in the case of death of the female Government servant. Rule 2 and Rule 3 reproduced hereinabove do not include ‘divorced daughter’ as eligible for appointment on compassionate ground and even as ‘dependent’. As observed hereinabove and even as held by this Court in the case of N.C. Santhosh, the norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the application should be the basis of consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. The word ‘divorced daughter’ has been aexdded subsequently by Amendment, 2021. Therefore, at the relevant time when the deceased employee died and when the original writ petitioner – respondent herein made an application for appointment on compassionate ground the ‘divorced daughter’ were not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground and the ‘divorced daughter’ was not within the definition of ‘dependent.’ [Para 8.1][658-A-D]
3. Apart from the above one additional aspect needs to be noticed, which the High Court has failed to consider. It is to be noted that the deceased employee died on 25.03.2012. The respondent herein – original writ petitioner at that time was a married daughter. Her marriage was subsisting on the date of the death of the deceased i.e. on 25.03.2012. Immediately on the death of the deceased employee, the respondent initiated the divorced proceedings under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 12.09.2012 for decree of divorce by mutual consent. By Judgment dated 20.03.2013, the Principal Civil Judge, Mandya granted the decree of divorce by mutual consent. That immediately on the very next day i.e. on 21.03.2013, the respondent herein on the basis of the decree of divorce by mutual consent applied for appointment on compassionate ground. The aforesaid chronology of dates and events would suggest that only for the purpose of getting appointment on compassionate ground the decree of divorce by mutual consent has been obtained. Otherwise, as a married daughter she was not entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, otherwise also the High Court ought not to have directed the appellants to consider the application of the respondent herein for appointment on compassionate ground as ‘divorced daughter’. This is one additional ground to reject the application of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground. [Para 8.2][658-E-H; 659A-B]
4. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that at the time when the deceased employee died on 25.03.2012 the marriage between the respondent and her husband was subsisting. Therefore, at the time when the deceased employee died she was a married daughter and therefore, also cannot be said to be ‘dependent’ as defined under Rule 2 of the Rules 1996. Therefore, even if it is assumed that the ‘divorced daughter’ may fall in the same class of ‘unmarried daughter’ and ‘widowed daughter’ in that case also the date on which the deceased employee died she – respondent herein was not the ‘divorced daughter’ as she obtained the divorce by mutual consent subsequent to the death of the deceased employee. Therefore, also the respondent shall not be eligible for the appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her mother and deceased employee. [Para 8.3][659B-D] N. C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (2020) 7 SCC 617 : [2020] 3 SCR 1177 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.