Smt. Savitha R. v. State of Karnataka & Others, 2026

The petitioner's father was employed as a Group-D Cook in a Pre-Metric ST Boys' Hostel under the Karnataka Government.

He died in harness on 25 February 2014.

Following his death, the petitioner, who is his married daughter, applied for compassionate appointment.

At the time of her application, the Karnataka Compassionate Appointment Rules did not include married daughters within the definition of "family" eligible for appointment.

The competent authority rejected her application on two grounds:

• She was a married daughter.

• Her mother was a retired Government servant receiving pension.

The petitioner challenged the rejection before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed her application despite observing that married daughters were entitled to compassionate appointment after the amendment.

Subsequently, the Karnataka Government amended the 1996 Rules by substituting the earlier provisions and expressly including married, divorced and widowed daughters within the definition of "family".

The petitioner approached the Karnataka High Court challenging the Tribunal's order.

The Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petition.

The Court held that the amendment to the 1996 Rules was made by substitution, and therefore it is retrospective in operation.

It observed that a substituted provision is deemed to have existed in the statute from the very beginning unless a contrary intention is expressed.

The Bench reiterated that exclusion of married daughters from compassionate appointment had already been declared unconstitutional.

It held that the petitioner's application could not be rejected merely because she was a married daughter.

The Court further held that receipt of pension by the petitioner's mother was not, by itself, a valid ground to reject the application.

The authorities were directed to consider the petitioner's claim afresh in accordance with the amended Rules and examine whether she satisfies the remaining eligibility requirements, including the income criteria under Rule 4.

The Tribunal's order was set aside.

The Court clarified an important principle of statutory interpretation that a provision introduced by substitution ordinarily operates retrospectively, treating the substituted provision as part of the original statute.

The decision strengthens the jurisprudence developed in Smt. Bhuvaneshwari Puranik, which declared exclusion of married daughters from compassionate appointment unconstitutional.

The Court emphasized that compassionate appointment is not a vested right but an eligible dependent has a right to fair consideration under the applicable scheme.

By rejecting pension as an automatic disqualification, the Court ensured that authorities assess the actual financial condition of the family instead of mechanically rejecting applications.

The ruling prevents arbitrary denial of compassionate appointments and promotes a welfare-oriented interpretation of service rules.

The judgment is significant because it benefits applicants whose claims were rejected before the amendment solely due to their marital status, provided they satisfy other eligibility conditions.

The decision is likely to influence future compassionate appointment cases involving substituted amendments and gender-based eligibility criteria.