THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES IN KARNATAKA & ANR.V. V. SOMYASHREE versus V. SOMYASHREE
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 649, Supreme Court of India, 2021
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
649
THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES IN KARNATAKA & ANR.
v.
V. SOMYASHREE
(Civil Appeal No. 5122 of 2021)
SEPTEMBER 13, 2021
[M. R. SHAH AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
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 daughter-
original 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
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 649
649
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
650
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
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 –
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
651
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; 659-
A-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
THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES IN KARNATAKA & ANR.
v. V. SOMYASHREE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
652
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
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][659-
B-D]
N. C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (2020) 7
SCC 617 : [2020] 3 SCR 1177 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2020] 3 SCR 1177
relied on
Para 5.7
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.5122 of
2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.12.2018 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No.5609 of 2017 (S-KAT).
V. N. Raghupathy, Md. Apzal Ansari, Advs. for the Appellants.
Mohd. Irshad Hanif, Rizwan Ahmad, Mujahid Ahmad, Mohd.
Aslam, Ahmad Parvez, Shishir Raj, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment
and Order dated 17.12.2018 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at
Bengaluru in Writ Petition No.5609/2017 by which the High Court has
allowed the said Writ Petition preferred by the respondent herein and
has quashed and set aside the order dated 09.12.2015 passed by the
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru in Application
No.6396 of 2015
and consequently has directed the appellants herein to
consider the application of the respondent herein – original writ petitioner
(hereinafter referred to as ‘original petitioner’) for grant of compassionate
appointment, the original respondent has preferred the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:
That one Smt. P. Bhagyamma, the mother of the original writ
petitioner was employed with the Government of Karnataka as Second
Division Assistant at Mandya District Treasury. She died on 25.03.2012.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
653
That original writ petitioner, who at the relevant time was a married
daughter at the time when the deceased (Smt. P. Bhagyamma) died,
initiated a divorce proceedings for divorce by mutual consent under
Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 12.09.2012. By its
judgment and decree dated 20.03.2013 a decree of divorce by mutual
consent was passed by the Learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, CJM,
Mandya. On the very next day i.e. on 21.03.2013, the original writ
petitioner submitted an application to appoint her on compassionate ground
on the death of her mother. By order dated 03.05.2013, the application
for appointment on compassionate appointment came to be rejected on
the ground that there is no provision provided under Rule 3(2)(ii) of
Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds)
Rules 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 1996’) for divorced
daughter. That the original writ petitioner made an application before the
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal being application No.6396 of
2015 on 20.07.2015 i.e. after a period of approximately 2 years from the
date of rejection of her application for appointment on compassionate
ground. The Learned Tribunal dismissed the said application by order
dated 09.12.2015 on the ground that there is no provision for appointment
on compassionate ground for divorced daughter. Thereafter, the original
writ petitioner approached the High Court against the order dated
09.12.2015 passed by
the Learned Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru.
3. By impugned judgment and order dated 17.12.2018 the High
Court has allowed the Writ Petition No.5609 of 2017 and has quashed
and set aside the order dated 09.12.2015 passed by the Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru in application No.6393 of 2015 and
has directed the appellants herein to consider the application of the original
writ petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment based on the
observations made in the impugned judgment and order.  By the impugned
judgment and order the High Court has interpreted Rule 3 of the Rules,
1996 and has observed that a divorced daughter would fall in the same
class of an unmarried or widowed daughter and therefore, a divorced
daughter has to be considered on par with ‘unmarried’ or ‘widowed
daughter’.
3.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court, the appellants have preferred the
present appeal.
THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES IN KARNATAKA & ANR.
v. V. SOMYASHREE [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
654
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
4. Shri V.N. Raghupathy, Learned Advocate appearing on behalf
of the State has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances
of the case, the High Court has materially erred in quashing and setting
aside the order passed by the Learned Tribunal and has erred in directing
the appellants to consider the application of the writ petitioner for grant
of compassionate appointment.
4.1 It is submitted that the directions issued by the High Court
directing the appellants to consider the application of the original writ
petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment is just contrary to
Rule 3 of Rules, 1996. It is submitted that as per Rule 3 of the Rules
1996 only “unmarried and widowed daughter” shall be entitled to and/or
eligible for the appointment on compassionate ground in the case of the
deceased female Government servant. It is submitted that Rule 3 (2)(ii)
of Rules, 1996 does not include the ‘divorced daughter’ for grant of
compassionate appointment in the case of the deceased female
Government servant.
4.2 It is further submitted that even as per the definition of
‘dependent’ as defined in Rule 2 of the Rules, 1996, in case of deceased
female Government servant her widower, son, (unmarried daughter or
widowed daughter) who were dependent upon her and were living with
her can be said to be ‘dependent’. It is submitted that the divorced
daughter is not included within the definition of ‘dependent’.
4.3
It is submitted that therefore the directions issued by the High
Court directing the appellants to consider the application of the respondent
herein for appointment on compassionate ground as a divorced daughter
is beyond Rule 2 and Rule 3 of the Rules, 1996.
4.4 It is submitted that even otherwise it has not been established
and proved that the respondent herein was ‘dependent’ upon the deceased
employee and was living with her at the time of her death.
4.5 It is further submitted that even otherwise the High Court has
committed a grave error in not appreciating the fact that the deceased
employee died on 25.03.2012 and that thereafter immediately the
respondent initiated a divorced proceedings under Section 13B of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 12.09.2012 and obtained a decree for
divorce by mutual consent dated 20.03.2013 and immediately on the
very next day submitted that application for appointment on compassionate
ground on 21.03.2013. It is submitted that the aforesaid facts would
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
655
clearly demonstrate that only for the purpose of getting the appointment
on compassionate ground she obtained the divorce by mutual consent.
It is submitted that the High Court has not at all considered the aforesaid
aspects.
5.7 Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of
N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka and Ors., (2020) 7 SCC 617 in
support of the submission that the appointment on compassionate ground
only be as per the scheme and the policy.
5.8 Making the above submissions it is prayed to allow the present
appeal.
6. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Mohd. Irshad
Hanif, Learned Advocate for the respondent – original writ petitioner.
6.1 It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case
the High Court has rightly interpreted Rule 3 and the object and purpose
by which Rule 3 was amended in the year 2000 by which the words
‘unmarried daughter’ and ‘widowed daughter’ came to be included within
the definition of ‘dependent’ in Rule 3. It is submitted that the High
Court has rightly observed that the intention and the rule making authority
in adding ‘unmarried’ or ‘widowed daughter’ to the definition of dependent
is very clear. It is submitted that the High Court has rightly observed that
‘divorced daughter’ would fall in the same class of ‘unmarried’ or
‘widowed daughter’. It is submitted that while interpreting Rule 3 of the
Rules, 1996 the High Court has adopted the purposive meaning.
6.2 It is submitted
that even subsequently and as per the Karnataka
Civil Services Appointment on Compassionate Grounds (Amendment
Rules, 2021) the ‘divorced daughter’ also shall be eligible for appointment
on compassionate ground in the case of the deceased Government
servant. It is submitted that therefore the interpretation made by the
High Court by the impugned judgment is absolutely in line with the
amended Rules, 2021 by which now even ‘divorced daughter’ also shall
be entitled the appointment on compassionate ground in the case of the
deceased servant.
6.3 Making the above submissions it is prayed to dismiss the present
appeal.
7. While considering the submissions made on behalf of the rival
parties a recent decision of this Court in the case of N.C. Santhosh
THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES IN KARNATAKA & ANR.
v. V. SOMYASHREE [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
656
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
(Supra) on the appointment on compassionate ground is required to be
referred to. After considering catena of decisions of this Court on
appointment on compassionate grounds it is observed and held that
appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made
on the basis of principles in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India and the compassionate appointment is an exception
to the general rule. It is further observed that the dependent of the
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. It is further observed and held that the norms
prevailing on the date of the consideration of the application should be
the basis for consideration of claim of compassionate appointment. A
dependent of a government employee, in the absence of any vested
right accruing on the death of the government employee, can only demand
consideration of his/her application. It is further observed he/she is,
however, entitled to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as
applicable on the day of death of the Government employee. The law
laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision on grant of appointment
on compassionate ground can be summarized as under:
(i)
that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the
general rule;
(ii) that no aspirant has a right to
compassionate appointment;
(iii) the appointment to any public post in the service of the State
has to be made on the basis of the principle in accordance
with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;
(iv) appointment on compassionate ground can be made only on
fulfilling the norms laid down by the State’s policy and/or
satisfaction of the eligibility criteria as per the policy;
(v) the norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of the
application should be the basis for consideration of claim for
compassionate appointment.
8. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision
to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that as such the
High Court has gone beyond Rule 2 and Rule 3 of the Rules, 1996 by
directing the appellants to consider the application of the respondent
herein for appointment on compassionate ground as ‘divorced daughter’.
Rule 2 and Rule 3 of the Rules, 1996 read as under:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
657
“2. Definitions:- (1) In these rules, unless the context
otherwise requires:-
(a) “Dependent of a deceased Government servant” means-
(i)
in the case of deceased male Government servant, his widow,
son, (unmarried daughter and widowed daughter) who were
dependent upon him; and were living with him; and
(ii)
in the case of a deceased female Government servant, her
widower, son, (unmarried daughter and widowed daughter)
who were dependent upon her and were living with her;
(iii) ‘family’ in relation to a deceased Government servant means
his or her spouse and their son, (unmarried daughter and
widowed daughter) who were living with him.
(2) Words and expressions used but not defined shall have
the same meaning assigned to them in the Karnataka Civil
Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977.”
6. The eligibility on the death of a female employee is in
terms of Rule 3(2)(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services
(Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, which
reads as follows:
Rule 3(2)(ii):-
‘(ii)  in the case of the deceased female Government servant;
(a) a son;
(b) an unmarried daughter, if the son is not eligible or for any
valid reason he is not willing to accept the appointment;
(c) the widower, if the son and daughter are not eligible or for
any valid reason they are not willing to accept the
appointment.
(d) a widowed daughter, if the widower, son and unmarried
daughter are not eligible or for any valid reason they are not
willing to accept the
appointment.
3. xxx
4 xxx”
THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES IN KARNATAKA & ANR.
v. V. SOMYASHREE [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
658
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
8.1 From the aforesaid rules 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
(Supra), 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 added 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.’
8.2 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 Learned 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
659
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.
8.3 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.
9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
appeal succeeds. The impugned common judgment and order passed by
the High Court in Writ Petition No.5609/2017 is hereby quashed and set
aside. The Writ Petition before the High Court is dismissed accordingly.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Ankit Gyan
Appeal allowed.
THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES IN KARNATAKA & ANR.
v. V.
SOMYASHREE [M. R. SHAH, J.]