Karnataka High Court Denies Compassionate Appointment for Married Daughter

Karnataka High Court dismissed a petition by Smt. K.S. Apoorva, who sought a compassionate appointment following her brother’s death in 2015. The court held that as a married daughter, Apoorva was ineligible for the appointment under the applicable rules at the time, which excluded married daughters from the definition of “dependents.” This ruling underscores the court's stance on the retrospective application of amendments in compassionate appointment cases.

Smt. K.S. Apoorva filed an application with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) after her request for a compassionate appointment was denied by the state authorities. Her brother, a government employee, had passed away in service, and Apoorva claimed eligibility as a dependent under the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996. The KSAT, however, rejected her claim on February 22, 2023, reasoning that at the time of her brother's death, the rules did not recognize married daughters as eligible dependents.

Prospective vs. Retrospective Application of Law: Apoorva’s counsel argued that the rules had since been amended to include married daughters within the definition of dependents, and that this socio-welfare change should apply retrospectively. He cited a previous decision in Bhuneshwara V. Puranik v. State of Karnataka, where a Karnataka High Court judge struck down the term "unmarried" from the dependent definition. This, he argued, warranted retroactive relief for married daughters.

The High Court, however, disagreed. Justice Krishna S. Dixit observed that compassionate appointments are governed by the rules in effect at the time of the employee's death. The court emphasized that amendments, even if socio-welfare in nature, do not have automatic retrospective effect unless expressly stated. The judgment cited Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, reinforcing that substantive rights are generally prospective unless indicated otherwise.

Legal Precedents on Married Daughters and Dependency: In support of its ruling, the court referenced decisions in similar cases:

Mrs. Megha J vs. LIC of India (2023): The court held that a married daughter typically cannot be considered dependent on her father under compassionate appointment rules. The judgment noted the general societal and legal norms where a married woman’s husband is expected to be her primary provider.
Smt. Priyanka Halamani vs. State of Karnataka (2024): Here, the court rejected the application of the doctrine of "reading down" to expand the definition of “family” for compassionate appointments, reinforcing that family definitions are a matter of public policy set by lawmakers, not the judiciary.
Role of Public Policy in Defining Dependents: The court emphasized that determining eligibility for compassionate appointments lies within legislative jurisdiction. It held that judicial interference should be limited, especially in cases involving clear statutory definitions, and that expanding the scope of dependents through interpretation risks overstepping judicial boundaries.

The Karnataka High Court concluded that the KSAT did not err in denying Apoorva’s claim. Since the compassionate appointment rules at the time of her brother’s death did not include married daughters as dependents, Apoorva’s claim was ineligible. The petition was dismissed, with the court stressing that compassionate appointments must be aligned with the prevailing rules as of the employee's death.

Date of Decision: October 28, 2024