Married Daughter Entitled To Compassionate Appointment If Rules Amended By Substitution; Amendment Relates Back To Original Date: Karnataka High Court

"Where amendment to a Rule or Act is by way of substitution, the amended provision is to be read as if it was there in the statute book from the day, the said Rule or Act came into force," Karnataka High Court has held that a married daughter is entitled to seek appointment on compassionate grounds even if the relevant rules were amended after her application was filed, provided the amendment was made by way of "substitution."

A bench of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice Rajesh Rai K observed that unlike an "insertion," an amendment by "substitution" has a retrospective effect and must be read as part of the original statute book from its inception.

The petitioner’s father, who served as a Group-D employee (Cook) at a Pre-metric ST Boy’s Hostel, died in service on February 25, 2014. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in December 2014, but her request was rejected in March 2021 on the grounds that she was a married daughter and her mother was a retired government servant receiving a pension. The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) upheld the rejection, prompting the petitioner to move the High Court.

The primary question before the court was whether the 2021 amendment to the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, which included married daughters in the definition of "family," would apply to the petitioner's case. The court also examined whether the receipt of a pension by the deceased employee's widow (the petitioner's mother) is an absolute bar to compassionate appointment.

Distinction Between Amendment By Insertion And Substitution

The Court meticulously distinguished between amendments made by "insertion" and those made by "substitution." It noted that while the Supreme Court in the Bheemesh case held that amendments by insertion are generally prospective, the same principle does not apply to substitution. The bench clarified that the 2021 amendment to the 1996 Rules, which expanded the definition of 'family' to include married daughters, was specifically brought in through substitution.

"Amended Provision Read As If Existing From Day One"

The Court emphasized that when a provision is substituted, the law treats the new provision as if it always existed in the statute book. Since the word "daughter" was substituted for "unmarried daughter" in the 1996 Rules, the petitioner became eligible for consideration regardless of the fact that her father passed away before the 2021 notification.

"The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in BHEEMESH would have no application to the facts of the present case since the petitioner is seeking benefit of 2021 Amended Rules which is by way of substitution."

Exclusion Of Married Daughters Previously Held Unconstitutional

The bench referred to the landmark coordinate bench decision in Smt. Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranik vs. State of Karnataka, where the exclusion of married daughters from compassionate appointment was declared unconstitutional. The Court noted that the subsequent 2021 amendment was a legislative response to this judicial finding, further cementing the right of married daughters to be considered for such appointments.

"The finding of the Tribunal that the amendment had only prospective effect and therefore the application cannot be considered, cannot be accepted."

Mother’s Pension Not An Absolute Bar To Appointment

Addressing the second ground for rejection, the Court held that the respondents could not have summarily dismissed the petitioner's claim simply because her mother was a retired government servant receiving a pension. The bench observed that the authorities are required to conduct a factual inquiry into the financial dependency and income of the family as per the criteria laid down in Rule 4 of the 1996 Rules.

Factual Inquiry Into Dependency Required

The Court noted that the mere receipt of a pension by one family member does not automatically negate the "distress" or "dependency" of another member seeking compassionate appointment. The authorities must examine whether the income exceeds the prescribed limits rather than rejecting the application based on the mother’s status as a pensioner alone.

"The respondents could not have rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that her mother is a retired Government servant and she is in receipt of pension."

The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal. The court quashed the endorsement dated March 12, 2021, which had rejected the petitioner's request. The respondents were directed to reconsider the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment in light of the 1996 Rules and the court's observations, specifically regarding the eligibility of married daughters, within a period of three months.

The ruling reinforces gender equality in public employment and clarifies the retrospective nature of legislative substitutions in service rules. By distinguishing the mode of amendment, the High Court has ensured that the beneficial intent of including married daughters in compassionate schemes is not defeated by procedural delays or the timing of the application.

Date of Decision: 15 June 2026