Compassionate appointments must address financial crises timely, with rules in effect at the time of application guiding decisions; administrative delays cannot negate this entitlement.

ORDER :

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:

A) A writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction, quashing the impugned endorsement dated 18/10/2024 bearing No.SAM.SAKAANIE/SANI AND AMAA/UV/KOO/DIXE/2024-25/787 issued by the 5th Respondent/The AEE Koppal produced at Annexure-G.

B) a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction, directing the Respondents No.2 to 5 for regularize the service of deceased petitioner’s father service as on the date eligible and to give Compassionate appointment to the Petitioner with all benefits representation submitted on 31/08/2024 vide Annexure-F.

C) Such other writ or orders or direction may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case including an order for costs be issued in the interest of justice.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is similarly placed as the petitioners who were parties in Writ Petition No.101416 of 2021 disposed on 21.02.2025

3. Learned HCGP for the respondent submits that the department is different, but the principles so laid down in the said judgment may become applicable in the facts of the case, but would submit that the representation seeking for regularization was filed only on 31.08.2024, long after the death of the employee. Learned HCGP would submit that the said factum of delay also be taken note of by passing appropriate orders.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, though the department involved was different in the decision rendered on 21.02.2025, the legal position remains the same, as the circular of the State Government regarding the grant of benefits to similarly situated persons has been referred to in the said judgment.

5. In the light of the said submissions, I deem it appropriate dispose the subject petition, noticing the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.101416 of 2021 disposed on 21.02.2025, which reads as follows:

3. Facts in brief, germane are as follows:

The petitioners are the wife and children of one Ningappa Badiger. The father of the petitioners No.2 to 5 was employed by the 4^th respondent on daily wages as Poura Karmika in the 4^th respondent-Bankapura Town Municipal Council. The appointment comes about in the year 1995. The averment in the petition is that it was against a sanctioned post. On 02.01.1997, it transpires that the State Government issues a circular observing that compassionate appointments to the heirs of daily wage workers, who die when their regularization is under consideration should be considered on its merit. It transpires that the father of the petitioners No.2 to 5 was further continued in Bankapur Town Panchayat with effect from 17.06.1999 pursuant to a resolution of the Panchayat, when the Panchayat was upgraded from a Town Municipal Council to a Town Panchayat in the year 1999. It transpires that Bankapura Town Panchayat later passes a resolution on 20.10.2000, absorbing the employees of the erstwhile Bankapura Grama Panchayat, including the services of the father of the petitioners No.2 to 5 to bring the employees under the minimum wage of the post that they occupied. Therefore, he was granted equal pay for equal work. The 4^th respondent-Panchayat was upgraded to Town Municipal Council and service of the father of the petitioners No.2 to 5 was again continued. The father of the petitioners No.2 to 5, on completion of 10 years of service as Poura Karmika in the 4^th respondent submits a representation seeking regularization of services on 30.11.2006. It transpires that on 06.09.2007, several of the employees, who