'Sisters are not included in the 'family'': Karnataka HC rules sisters excluded from compassionate appointments'

A recent decision by the Karnataka High Court has determined that, according to the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules of 1999, sisters are not included in the definition of “family.”

This ruling came as the court dismissed the appeal of a woman who had sought a compassionate appointment in place of her deceased brother.

The court explained that Rule 2(1)(b) specifically outlines that in the case of a deceased male government servant, only his widow, son, or daughter who were dependent on him and living with him are considered as his family members.

In this context, the appellant, who is the sister of the deceased, cannot be considered a member of the deceased’s family. These rules are adhered to by the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd (KPTCL) and Bangalore Electricity Supply Company (Bescom), both of which are government entities.

The division bench, consisting of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit, rejected the appeal filed by GM Pallavi. Pallavi, a resident of Tiptur taluk in Tumakuru district, had submitted her application to the Chief Minister on February 28, 2019, during a Janata Darshan event.

She was seeking a compassionate appointment in place of her brother Shashikumar, who had been employed as a junior lineman and tragically passed away on November 4, 2016, while still in service. After considering her application, Bescom issued a letter on November 13, 2019, denying her request.

Pallavi subsequently contested this decision, and on March 30, 2023, a single bench rejected her petition. The court cited the fact that the rules did not include sisters as eligible family members for compassionate appointments, and furthermore, the appellant had not demonstrated her dependence on her late brother, as required by previous Supreme Court decisions.

In her appeal, Pallavi argued that she was indeed a member of the family and had been dependent on her deceased brother. KPTCL and Bescom contended that compassionate appointments are an exception to the principle of equal opportunity in public employment, and the regulations governing them must be strictly interpreted.

Upon careful consideration of these arguments, the division bench concluded that the courts cannot alter the clear definition provided in the rules through interpretation. When the rulemakers have explicitly specified who qualifies as a family member of an employee, the court cannot add or remove individuals from this definition. Accepting such an argument would effectively mean rewriting the rules, which is not permissible.

The bench further noted that the appellant had not presented any evidence to demonstrate her financial dependence on her brother at the time of his passing, nor had she provided any proof of the deceased family’s financial distress, which is typically required to justify a compassionate appointment.