The Karnataka High Court has ruled that compassionate appointment is a necessity-based concession rather than an automatic right arising from a family relationship, setting aside an order that had directed the Kalyana Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (KKRTC) to appoint the married brother of a deceased driver.
A division bench of Justices M Nagaprasanna and Hema Kulkarni passed the order on October 28 while allowing an appeal filed by the state-owned transport corporation. The ruling concerned Veeresh Mantappa Lolasar, a KKRTC driver who died while in service on September 21, 2023.
Veeresh’s wife had died before him and the couple had no children. His 65-year-old mother, Mantavva, subsequently sought compassionate appointment for Veeresh’s brother, Sanganna. KKRTC rejected the request, stating that Sanganna was married and that a brother did not qualify as a dependent under the corporation’s applicable circular.
The family then approached the high court. A single-judge bench ruled in their favour and directed KKRTC to provide Sanganna with a suitable post based on his educational qualifications. The corporation challenged that order before the division bench, arguing that a married brother of a deceased employee did not meet the definition of a dependent under its policy.
KKRTC also argued that compassionate appointment is an exception to the constitutional principle of equality in public employment and cannot be converted into a general avenue for recruitment. The applicants, however, told the court that the purpose of the scheme was to rescue a family from the sudden financial hardship caused by the death of its breadwinner. They said the deceased employee’s mother and brother were the surviving relatives who depended on him for support.
Sanganna had also submitted an affidavit undertaking to maintain and care for his mother. The court, however, held that this undertaking could not create an entitlement that was not recognised by the corporation’s policy. It observed that a married brother who lived separately and was not a dependent under the applicable circular could not claim appointment merely because he had offered to support his mother.
The division bench said compassionate appointment could not become “compassionate recruitment” and that a court could not create a new class of eligible beneficiaries while interpreting an existing policy. It added that a moral obligation, even when recorded in an affidavit, could not become a statutory or policy-based right.
By setting aside the single-judge order, the court reaffirmed that compassionate appointment must remain confined to the conditions prescribed by the relevant employment scheme. The ruling leaves KKRTC’s policy-based rejection of Sanganna’s application undisturbed.
