Term "Dependant" Denotes Members Who Were Reliant On Deceased Employee: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Married Daughter’s Plea For Compassionate Appointment
The Court said that the term dependent within the context of compassionate appointment denotes family members who were reliant on the deceased employee for financial support.
The Karnataka High Court, while dismissing the plea of a married daughter seeking compassionate appointment, has observed that the term dependent within the context of compassionate appointment denotes family members who were reliant on the deceased employee for financial support.
It said that the primary objective of such appointments is to provide immediate relief to a family in financial crisis, rather than acting as a form of inheritance.
The Division Bench of Justice BM Shyam Prasad and Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar observed, “The object of compassionate appointment is firmly rooted in addressing the immediate financial crisis faced by families following the demise of a family member, without conferring appointment as a matter of right or inheritance. The essence of compassionate appointment lies in addressing the immediate financial distress experienced by the family in the aftermath of the employee's demise. The term dependent within the context of compassionate appointment denotes family members who were reliant on the deceased employee for financial support.”
Advocate H.M. Dharigond appeared for the Appellant, while Advocate Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath appeared for the Respondents.
A writ appeal was filed assailing the judgment passed by the Single Judge in a writ petition. The Appellant’s father worked as an attender. He died while still in service on June 21, 2005. Following his death, the Appellant requested a job on compassionate grounds. However, her service records showed she was a married daughter.
In November 2007, the government rejected her application. This was because Rule 3 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules does not allow married daughters to receive such appointments. The authorities officially informed her of this rejection in December 2007 and returned her original documents.
However, the Appellant hid the fact that the government had already rejected her application. She told the court that her application was still pending and that she had received no news. Based on this, the court initially allowed her to submit a new request.
The Appellant waited until 2015 to file a new representation. This time, she admitted her previous application was rejected. The authorities looked at her case again but rejected it once more in 2016. She then challenged this new rejection in court.
The court noted that the petitioner suppressed the truth in her first legal filing. It also ruled that a married daughter is usually not considered a "dependent" on her father, as the legal duty to support her lies with her husband.
The Court observed, “Considering the said aspects, the writ Court has rightly observed that the primary objective of compassionate appointment is to address the immediate financial constraint faced by the family following the death of the government's servant or employee. However, the prolonged delay in addressing the appellant -petitioner's request has allowed for a substantial amount of time to elapse without providing the necessary assistance or relief to the family.”
Finding that the appellant had suppressed the fact that her initial application was rejected back in 2007 and noting that the legal duty of maintenance for a married woman shifts to her husband, the Court held that the significant lapse of time since the employee's death erased the grounds for "immediate" assistance.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Smt. Laxmi v. The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka and Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC-D:4011-DB]
Appearances:
Appellant: Advocate H.M. Dharigond
Respondents: Advocate Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath