Married daughter entitled to compassionate appointment, says Karnataka High Court

2 min readBengaluruUpdated: Jun 25, 2026 04:39 PM IST

File photo of the Karnataka High Court.

In a judgment on June 15, the Karnataka High Court held that a married daughter cannot be denied compassionate appointment on the death of her father.

The petitioner, Savitha R, had questioned the rejection of her application for compassionate appointment first by the government department concerned and then by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal. Her father worked as a cook in the pre-metric ST Boys’ Hostel in Challakere Taluk under the Social Welfare Department and died on February 25, 2014. Savitha had made an application on December 27, 2014, requesting a compassionate appointment.

Seven years after the application was made, the authorities rejected it, stating that Savitha is a married daughter and her mother is a retired Government employee receiving a pension.

The same was challenged by her before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, which in 2022 also rejected her application but concluded that a married daughter is entitled to a compassionate appointment.

Advocate Virupakshaiah P H, appearing for the petitioner, informed the high court that the state government had amended the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, and included married daughters in the definition of ‘family’ on April 9, 2021.

Additional Government Advocate Harisha A S opposed the plea, stating that the application of the petitioner was rejected before the amended provision came into force.

The bench then referred to a coordinate bench judgment passed in 2024, which had rejected a similar contention, stating that the application for compassionate appointment has to be considered under the existing Scheme or existing Rules.

Story continues below this ad

Following which, the bench in its order said, “In view of the amendment, even married daughters would be entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. The case of the petitioner shall have to be considered by the respondents in terms of Rule 4(1)(b) and also Rules 5 and 6 of Rules, 1996.”

Allowing the petition, the bench set aside the tribunal order and directed the state government to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.