Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a writ appeal filed by the adopted son of a deceased KSRTC driver, who sought employment on compassionate grounds. The court observed that such appointments are a welfare measure, not a matter of right, and upheld the policy bar on adopted children as well as the delay in applying.
A division bench comprising Justice D.K. Singh and Justice Rajesh Rai K. delivered the judgment while dismissing the plea filed by Vinayaka Madenahalli, a resident of Hirekerur in Haveri district.
Compassionate appointment not a right, says court
“It is well-settled that compassionate appointment is a welfare measure adopted by the employer or government agencies to save the bereaved family of an employee from destitution and to overcome financial difficulty arising from the sudden demise of the breadwinner. It is not a vested right of a dependent of the deceased employee to seek appointment at any point of time,” the bench stated.
The court noted that Vinayaka’s father, Chandrappa Madenahalli, a KSRTC driver, had passed away in February 2014. Nearly five years later, on February 13, 2019, Vinayaka submitted his first application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, which was rejected by KSRTC on May 8, 2019. Two subsequent applications filed in August 2021 were also turned down.
KSRTC cites policy exclusion and delay
KSRTC opposed the plea, contending that its policy expressly prohibits compassionate appointments for adopted sons or daughters, and that the application was filed long after the one-year deadline prescribed by its rules.
Vinayaka argued that he had made an earlier application on April 5, 2014, shortly after his father’s death, but the bench found no record of this claim in earlier proceedings. “According to his own averments, the first application was made only on February 13, 2019,” the bench observed.
Civil court decree questioned
The court also took note of Vinayaka’s 2018 civil suit filed before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur, where he sought a declaration affirming his legal adoption by the late Chandrappa Madenahalli. The case was uncontested and decreed in his favour on January 24, 2019.
However, the bench remarked that the suit appeared to have been filed primarily to strengthen his claim for a government post, rather than as a genuine adoption dispute.
Policy and legal precedents
Referring to KSRTC’s service policy, the court reiterated that applications for compassionate appointment must be filed within one year of the employee’s death and that adopted children are excluded from eligibility.
Given both the policy bar and the five-year delay, the bench ruled that the appeal lacked merit. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Canara Bank vs Ajith Kumar, the court dismissed the writ appeal.
Conclusion
The verdict reinforces the principle that compassionate appointments are meant to provide immediate relief to the families of deceased employees, not serve as a belated employment avenue. The ruling also underscores that adopted children remain ineligible for such appointments under existing KSRTC policy, unless explicitly included by future amendments.