2021 INSC 0515
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITON
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5122 OF 2021
The Director of Treasuries 
in Karnataka & Anr.              .. Appellants
Versus
V. Somyashree    .. Respondent
J U D G M E N T
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

2
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.     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

3
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

4
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’.

5
3.1 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court, the appellants
have preferred the present appeal.
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

6
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.

7
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   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.

8
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.  

9
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   (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

10
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: 

11
(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

12
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:
“ 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:

13
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”
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

14
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

15
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 the
application   of   the   respondent   herein   for   appointment   on
compassionate   ground   as   ‘divorced   daughter’.     This   is   one

16
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

17
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.
………………………………… J.
              (M. R. SHAH)
………………………………… J.
      (ANIRUDDHA BOSE)
New Delhi, 
September  13, 2021