IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 108098 OF 2025 (S-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. HANAMANTH KASHINATH @ KASHAPPA @ KAMBLE AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. B.R.AMBEDKAR NAGAR, RAYABHAG, TQ. RAYABHAG, DIST. BELAGAVI – 591 317.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC, CHIKKODI DIVISION, CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI – 591 201.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRASHANT HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND VISHAL NINGAPPA

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING Dharwad Bench, Dharwad THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 24/07/2025, IN NO. VAA.KA.RA.SAA/ CHI.VI/SIBBANDI/NEMAKA/925/2025-26, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT, VIDE ANNEXURE-E, AND CONSEQUENT UPON QUASHING THE AFORESAID ENDORSEMENT, ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO APPOINT THE PETITIONER ON APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND, BY FIXING OUTER LIMIT AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

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

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

i. “Issue writ of Certiorari or any other writ or order quashing the endorsement dated 24/07/2025, in no. VAA.KA.RA.SAA/ CHI.VI/ SIBBANDI/ NEMAKA/ 925/2025-26, issued by the respondent, vide Annexure-E, and ii. Consequent upon quashing the aforesaid endorsement, issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent to appoint the petitioner on appointment on compassionate ground, by fixing outer limit, and iii. Issue any other writ or order as this Hon’ble court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case including the cost in the ends of justice”.

2. Learned counsel Sri.Prashanth Hosmani, is directed to accept notice for the respondent and is heard in the matter.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner takes this Court through the documents appended to the petition and seeks to prima facie demonstrate that the petitioner, who is the brother of the deceased employee of the Corporation, is entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. The deceased employee died in harness in the year 1999, and the claim is now made in the year 2025, i.e., after a lapse of 26 years from the date of death.

4. Such a submission does not merit acceptance.

Compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate relief to the family of a deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis arising out of the death of the breadwinner. The benefit cannot be claimed after a prolonged lapse of time, except in exceptional circumstances where the delay is attributable to the employer.

5. In the case at hand, any direction to consider the petitioner’s claim at this stage would run contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, (2006) 5 SCC 766 “8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

The learned counsel for the State submitted that the Division Bench has committed clear error of law in allowing the letters patent appeal and setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. He submitted that the father of the applicant died in 1987 and an application was made for the first time in 1991. Even on that day, the applicant was minor and was not eligible to be appointed. Moreover, the authorities considered the case of the applicant and in March 1996, the claim of the applicant was rejected. The said fact was communicated not only to the Department but also to the applicant and the applicant was aware of such decision. He, however, kept silence and did nothing, nor did he challenge the said decision at any time. After about three years, in 1999, when again there was a departmental communication, the applicant woke up and approached the Court and challenged the said decision. Thus, there wa