ORAL ORDER

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

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an endorsement dated 22-04-2025, issued by the 2^nd respondent by which the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds is said to have been turned down.

2. Heard Smt. Sanjana S.Mudhol, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Kirtilata R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri Prasad R.Sidhanti, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6 and 7.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: -The petitioner is the wife of one Shridhar Kamble, who was working as an Assistant Teacher in Hindi subject, a permanent employee in the 7^th respondent-Management, an aided Institution. The husband of the petitioner died in harness while serving as an Assistant Teacher, on 07-04-2012. On 01-02-2013 before completion of one year from the date of the death of her husband, the petitioner submits an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The application of the petitioner was forwarded to the competent authority for consideration. No consideration happens immediately. The petitioner then had to approach this Court in Writ Petition No.101490/2021, seeking a direction to consider the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. This comes to be disposed of on 29-09-2021 with a direction to consider the representation/application of the petitioner. No order was passed and therefore, the petitioner had to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. After issuance of notice and during the pendency of the contempt, the claim of the petitioner comes to be rejected by issuance of the impugned endorsement, pursuant to which, the contempt comes to be closed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said rejection of her claim. It is, therefore, the present petition is preferred.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the State has now declined to accept the claim of the petitioner on the score that the claim with regard to appointment on compassionate grounds has undergone a change and, therefore, the claim could not be accepted. The learned counsel submits that it is settled principle of law that at the time of death of the employee what was the Scheme prevalent only must be considered and not any Scheme that comes about at a later date. The learned counsel seeks to place reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. ASHISH AWASTHI reported in (2022) 2 SCC 157 and a judgment of the division bench of this Court in STATE OF KARNATAKA v. MAHABOOB PATEL, in W.P.No.202187 of 2023, decided on 25^th July, 2025

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6 and 7 submits that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a right. It is the discretion of the Management to render appointment or otherwise, owing to certain facts and circumstances. The petitioner’s case could not be considered owing to the change in the Scheme. Therefore, no fault can be found with the claim of the petitioner being rejected.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

7. The issue in the lis is, whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds or otherwise.

8. The husband of the petitioner was an Assistant Teacher working in the 7^th respondent/Institution, a grant in- aid Institution. He dies in harness in the year 2012. On the death of the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner submits an application immediately seeking appointment on compassionate grounds on 01-02-2013. The application is as follows:

Therefore, there is no delay in the petitioner submitting her application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. This is forwarded to the competent authority. It remains in cold storage for years together. The petitioner, a widow d