The Karnataka High Court stated that when it comes to compassionate appointment, there is no distinction between an adopted son and a biological son.
It is the case of the appellant that the petitioner is the adopted son of one Vinayak M Muttatti, who was working as Class-IV employee (dalayat) in the office of Assistant Public Prosecutor, JMFC, Banahatti. The appellant being adopted by way of an adoption deed, the adoption was made on account of the natural born son of the said Vinayak M Muttatti having expired in a road traffic accident.
The adoptive father Vinayak M Muttatti expired, the appellant had submitted a representation seeking for compassionate appointment.
The said representation was rejected by respondent vide endorsement and by respondent on the ground that the appellant was an adopted son and the Rules do not provide for consideration of adopted son for compassionate appointment.
Praveen Uppar, HCGP for the respondents, submitted that consideration of the application is required to be made on the basis of the applicable Rules as on the date of the application and the subsequent amendment would not have any impact and the benefit given by way of amendment cannot be extended to the petitioner.
He submitted that the judgment of the Single Judge is proper and correct and does not require any interference.
The division bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Justice G Basavaraja observed that the aspect of ground of compassionate appointment arises only on account of any financial difficulty and or stringency faced by the family on account of the death of the earning family member who was employed in the Government service.
“It is in that background that an effort is made to provide compassionate appointment to one of the family members so as to enable that family member to take care of the entire family. This being the object and intention of compassionate appointment, it is in that background that an application made would have to be considered” the court said.
The court said that the daughter being a natural daughter, would have been entitled to a compassionate appointment if not for her being mentally retarded as also physically handicapped. In such a situation, it is the adopted son who was so adopted by the deceased to take care of the family on account of the death of a natural-born son who has applied for a compassionate appointment.
It was opined by the court that the application made by the adopted son for compassionate appointment is bonafide and is required to be considered in the background of the difficulties faced by the family.
Citation: Writ appeal no. 100362 of 2022 (gm-res)