Mechanical Application of Age Cut‑Off in Compassionate Appointment Schemes is Impermissible: Indigence Assessment Mandatory

1. Introduction

The decision in Saroja W/o. Ganeshrao N. Kondai v. Managing Director, NWKRTC, W.P. No. 106296 of 2025 (S‑RES), decided by the Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench on 14 October 2025 by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, consolidates and refines the law on age limits in compassionate appointments.

The case concerns a widow’s claim for compassionate appointment with the Northwestern Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (NWKRTC) after the death in harness of her husband, a Driver‑cum‑Conductor. The Corporation rejected her request solely on the ground that she had crossed the maximum age prescribed under its compassionate appointment scheme (43 years, i.e., 38 years plus 5 years' relaxation).

The High Court, while following an earlier Coordinate Bench decision and drawing extensively from the Supreme Court’s judgment in Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 290), has laid down an important principle:

• Public employers cannot reject requests for compassionate appointment solely on the basis of a rigid age cut‑off without first assessing the applicant’s indigence and the family’s financial condition.
• Where the scheme itself contemplates a “relaxable” age limit, the power of relaxation must be considered in an appropriate and humane manner, and not treated as illusory.

While the Court did not directly order the appointment of the petitioner, it quashed the Corporation’s endorsements and remitted the matter for reconsideration, requiring NWKRTC to re‑examine her case in light of the Supreme Court’s guidance on indigence and age relaxation.

2. Factual Background and Key Issues

2.1 Parties

• Petitioner: Saroja, aged 47, widow of late Ganeshrao N. Kondai, resident of Dharwad.
• Respondents:
  • Managing Director, NWKRTC, Hubballi.
  • Divisional Controller, NWKRTC, Dharwad Rural Division.
  • Divisional Security Superintendent, NWKRTC, Dharwad Rural Division.
  • Chief Personnel Manager, NWKRTC.

2.2 Material Facts

• Petitioner’s husband was appointed as a Driver‑cum‑Conductor in NWKRTC on 04.04.2006.
• He died in harness (i.e., during service) on 27.09.2023.
• Immediately thereafter, the petitioner, as the widow of the deceased, applied for compassionate appointment.
• NWKRTC rejected her application by an endorsement dated 17.01.2025, stating that she was 47 years, 2 months and 24 days old as on the relevant date, whereas:
  • The upper age limit for appointment under the scheme was 38 years,
  • Relaxable by 5 years (total maximum of 43 years).
• She submitted detailed representations explaining the family’s financial distress and need for support.
• A second endorsement dated 10.05.2025 reiterated the rejection, again solely on the basis of age.

2.3 Reliefs Sought

The petitioner invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking:

• A writ of certiorari to quash the two endorsements dated 17.01.2025 and 10.05.2025; and
• A writ of mandamus directing NWKRTC to appoint her on compassionate grounds.

2.4 Core Legal Issues

The case posed these key questions:

1. Can an application for compassionate appointment be rejected solely on the ground that the applicant has crossed the age cut‑off prescribed by the employer’s scheme?
2. Where the scheme prescribes a relaxable age limit, is the employer obliged to consider relaxation in appropriate cases, particularly where the dependent claims severe financial hardship?
3. What is the role of indigence (financial hardship) in adjudicating claims for compassionate appointment?

3. Summary of the Judgment

Justice Nagaprasanna allowed the writ petition in part. The key operative directions are:

1. The endorsements dated 17.01.2025 and 10.05.2025 issued by NWKRTC rejecting the petitioner’s application solely on the basis of age were quashed.
2. The matter was remitted to the Corporation to reconsider the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment:
   • in light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K.,
   • keeping in view the relaxable/extendable age limit, and
   • taking into account the financial hardship and circumstances narrated in her representations.
3. The Corporation was directed to conclude this reconsideration within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the High Court’s order.

The Court did not directly grant a mandamus appointing the petitioner. Instead, it insisted that the Corporation must first undertake the indigence assessment and apply its power of age relaxation in a humane manner, consistent with the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence.

4. Analysis

4.1 Precedents and Prior Case Law Relied On

4.1.1 Coordinate Bench decision: W.P. No. 102208 of 2025 (14.08.2025)

A central plank of the petitioner’s argument was an earlier Coordinate Bench decision of the Karnataka High Court in W.P. No. 102208 of 2025, decided on 14 August 2025 (also involving a widow of a NWKRTC employee). In that case:

• The petitioner’s husband, employed as a Controller with NWKRTC, died in harness on 25.06.2021.
• The widow applied for compassionate appointment to a Class‑D post.
• NWKRTC rejected her application on the ground that she was aged 45 years 7 months, allegedly beyond the relaxable upper age limit (45 years for her category).

The Coordinate Bench held:

• The core object of compassionate appointment is to protect the livelihood of dependents of a deceased employee.
• Rigid reliance on the upper age limit, in a situation where the widow has no children and no one to look after her, defeats the very purpose of the scheme.
• The High Court characterized the Corporation’s stance as inhumane and unjust and directed:
  • Quashing of the rejection endorsements.
  • Direct appointment of the petitioner as a Class‑D employee, “without reference to the upper age limit”.
  • A request to the Managing Director of NWKRTC to frame an “appropriate humane policy” for such cases.

Justice Nagaprasanna expressly stated he was in respectful agreement with this judgment. However, he chose to “amplify” it by anchoring the reasoning more firmly in the Supreme Court’s latest pronouncement in Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K..

4.1.2 Supreme Court: Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 290)

This Supreme Court judgment is the linchpin of the High Court’s reasoning. It revisits the entire jurisprudence on compassionate appointment tracing back to:

• Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State Of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138;
• State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari, (2025) 5 SCC 712; and
• Other later decisions such as B. Kishore and Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar etc. (the latter is criticised in part).

Relevant extracts (as reproduced in the High Court’s order) include:

Para 35: “We are in agreement with learned counsel for the appellant that the question of relaxation would arise only when the claimant satisfies the other requirements of the scheme … What seems to be logical is that no dependant, who otherwise satisfies all criteria for compassionate appointment including suitability, should be told off at the gate solely on the ground of age‑bar. If the age of the claimant is found to be within the relaxable limit, discretion is available to be exercised in an appropriate case.”

Para 43: “… Overcoming the immediate financial difficulties on account of sudden stoppage of the main source of income and existence of indigent circumstances necessitating employment … is at the heart of the scheme …

… Although paragraph 3.2 [keeping the offer open till a minor attains majority] may not be wholly in sync with the objective of overcoming immediate financial difficulties, it has to be seen as a benevolent clause … for ensuring the right of the family members of the deceased employee to live with human dignity…

Para 44: “… indigence of the dependants of the deceased employee is the fundamental condition to be satisfied under any scheme for appointment on compassionate ground… if such indigence is not proved, grant of relief … would result in a sort of reservation for the dependents of the employee dying‑in‑harness, thereby directly conflicting with the ideal of equality under Articles 14 and 16.”

The Supreme Court thus emphasised two simultaneous themes:

• Protection of indigent families: Compassionate appointment is a tool to alleviate the immediate financial crisis caused by the employee’s death.
• Preservation of equality: Without a genuine test of indigence, compassionate appointments would effectively become hereditary or reserved posts for families of deceased employees, undermining equality under Articles 14 and 16.

This dual emphasis directly informs the Karnataka High Court’s conclusion that:

1. Age cut‑offs cannot be applied mechanically; and
2. Indigence assessment is non‑negotiable before rejecting a claim.

4.1.3 Earlier foundational precedent: Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State Of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138

In Umesh Kumar Nagpal, the Supreme Court laid down foundational principles:

• Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of recruitment based on equality and merit.
• Its sole object is to enable the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis.
• It is not a vested or heritable right, nor a means of providing employment to all dependents of deceased employees.

The present High Court decision is consistent with this framework: it insists on safeguarding the exceptional and need‑based character of compassionate appointments by:

• Requiring proof of indigence; and
• Rejecting mechanical age‑bar exclusions that ignore genuine hardship.

4.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

4.2.1 Rejection solely on age is contrary to the Supreme Court’s framework

The Corporation’s endorsements reveal that its only stated ground for rejection was the petitioner’s age: 47 years 2 months and 24 days, exceeding the relaxable limit of 43 years. The High Court noted that:

• The endorsements cited the scheme and worked out the petitioner’s age,
• But did not consider at all:
  • Her financial condition,
  • The family’s dependence on the deceased employee, or
  • The representations explaining the hardship.

This approach is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s holding in Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar that:

• No otherwise‑eligible dependent should be “told off at the gate solely on the ground of age‑bar.”
• Age relaxation is to be considered at the final stage of the process, after the threshold test of indigence and suitability is satisfied.

Justice Nagaprasanna explicitly records that “No such analysis has been made in the case at hand, as is directed by the Apex Court.” The Corporation never crossed the first “threshold” of determining whether the family was indigent.

4.2.2 Age limits are “relaxable” and cannot be treated as inflexible

A significant feature of the NWKRTC scheme is that:

• The normal maximum age is 38 years.
• This is relaxable by 5 years, evidently up to 43 years.

The High Court, aligning with the Supreme Court, reasons that:

• Once a scheme declares an age limit as “relaxable”, that power of relaxation must be meaningfully applied.
• Merely reciting a cut‑off age and summarily rejecting a claim amounts to a failure to exercise discretion, which is a recognized ground for judicial interference under Article 226.
• Especially in cases where the applicant is a widow with no apparent alternate source of income, the age‑relaxation discretion must be considered in a humane and case‑sensitive manner.

Thus, the Court does not say that age limits are irrelevant; rather, it says that:

1. They are not absolute where the scheme itself contemplates relaxation; and
2. The exercise (or non‑exercise) of that relaxation power must be rationally and humanely explainable.

4.2.3 Centrality of indigence: the threshold condition

Applying Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar, the High Court emphasizes that:

• Indigence (severe financial hardship) is the “fundamental condition” for compassionate appointment.
• Compassionate appointment is not a perquisite of service, but a form of protective discrimination; if granted without proof of indigence, it morphs into a reservation of posts for families of deceased staff, which offends Articles 14 and 16.

In the present case, the petitioner had submitted detailed representations explaining that:

• Her family was driven to penury and impecuniosity upon the death of her husband, the sole breadwinner.
• She had no occupation and depended entirely on his income.

Yet the Corporation did not engage with this material at all. By ignoring the indigence inquiry, it violated the very heart of the compassionate appointment scheme as interpreted by the Supreme Court. This omission alone justified quashing the endorsements.

4.2.4 Harmonising with the Coordinate Bench while refining the remedy

Justice Nagaprasanna expressly agrees with the earlier Coordinate Bench decision (W.P. No. 102208/2025) which held that a widow cannot be denied compassionate appointment merely for having crossed the upper age limit. However, he modifies the response in two critical respects:

1. Emphasis on indigence and structured reasoning:

   The earlier Bench moved straight from finding the Corporation’s approach “inhumane” to directing appointment without reference to the upper age limit. The present Bench, guided by Canara Bank, insists on a structured approach:

   • First, determine whether the family is in indigent circumstances.
   • Second, assess whether the applicant otherwise satisfies the scheme’s conditions.
   • Third, consider age relaxation at the final stage.

   Only if this framework indicates entitlement should appointment follow.

2. Remedy: Reconsideration rather than direct appointment:

   While the Coordinate Bench ordered direct appointment, Justice Nagaprasanna confines himself to:

   • Quashing the rejection orders; and
   • Remitting the matter for fresh consideration within 8 weeks.

   This preserves the employer’s primary role in evaluating eligibility and indigence, while ensuring its discretion is exercised lawfully and in line with Supreme Court guidance.

In effect, the Court balances compassion with : it enforces the proper exercise of discretion, rather than substituting its own view outright.

4.3 Impact on Future Cases and the Law

4.3.1 For NWKRTC and similar public sector undertakings

This judgment—read with the earlier Coordinate Bench decision—has clear consequences for NWKRTC and comparable State entities:

• They can no longer mechanically enforce age cut‑offs in their compassionate appointment schemes.
• Before rejecting any application, they must:
  • Conduct a genuine and recorded assessment of the family’s financial condition;
  • Consider the availability of other dependents who could seek employment (e.g., adult children);
  • Assess whether the applicant falls within, or just outside, the relaxable age limit; and
  • Decide whether to exercise age relaxation in the specific facts.
• They are under an implicit obligation (already underlined by the Coordinate Bench) to frame or revise policies to ensure a more humane and legally compliant treatment of such cases—especially widows with no alternate support.

4.3.2 For compassionate appointment jurisprudence generally

The decision reiterates and strengthens several broad propositions:

1. Indigence is mandatory: No compassionate appointment can be granted or denied without a serious evaluation of whether the family is truly in financial distress.
2. Age cut‑offs are not absolute where the scheme provides for relaxation: The existence of a relaxable age ceiling implies a duty to consider relaxation, not merely cite age as an insurmountable barrier.
3. Compassionate appointment remains exceptional: The Court carefully avoids treating it as a hereditary or automatic right. It instead enforces the conditional and need‑based nature of the benefit, in line with Articles 14 and 16.
4. Judicial review focuses on the decision‑making process: The Court does not direct appointment in every case but intervenes where:
   • Material factors (like indigence) are ignored; or
   • Discretion (such as age relaxation) is not exercised or is exercised arbitrarily.

4.3.3 Potential litigation patterns

Going forward, one can expect:

• More writ petitions challenging mechanical age‑based rejections.
• Greater scrutiny of:
  • How employers assess financial status (pension, terminal benefits, other income, liabilities, dependents); and
  • How they record reasons for exercising or refusing age relaxation.
• Pressure on departments and PSUs to adopt:
  • Clear internal guidelines on indigence assessment; and
  • Standard operating procedures for relaxing upper age limits in deserving cases.

5. Complex Concepts Simplified

5.1 Compassionate Appointment

Compassionate appointment is a scheme under which a government department or public sector employer offers a job to a dependent (usually spouse or child) of an employee who dies while in service (“dies in harness”). The idea is to:

• Help the family survive the immediate financial shock from the loss of the main breadwinner.
• Prevent destitution and ensure a basic standard of living.

It is not:

• A reward for the employee’s past service.
• A heritable right that automatically passes to the family.
• A substitute for regular competitive recruitment.

5.2 “Dies in Harness”

This phrase simply means that the employee died while still in service, not after retirement. Most compassionate appointment schemes apply only when the death occurs before superannuation.

5.3 Cut‑Off Age and Relaxable Age Limit

• Cut‑off age: The maximum age at which a person is normally eligible for appointment to a post. For example, 38 years.
• Relaxable age limit: Some schemes allow this age to be relaxed (increased) by a certain number of years—say, by five years, making the effective upper limit 43 years. The word “relaxable” means that:
  • The employer has a discretion to permit appointment beyond the normal age in suitable cases.
  • This discretion must be exercised reasonably and fairly, not in a routine or arbitrary way.

5.4 Indigence

“Indigence” refers to a state of serious financial hardship or poverty. In the context of compassionate appointment, courts look at:

• Whether the family has other earning members.
• The amount and sufficiency of family pension and terminal benefits (gratuity, provident fund, etc.).
• The number of dependents (children, parents, etc.) and their needs.
• Debts, liabilities, and special circumstances (e.g., chronic illness).

Only if the family is found to be in genuine financial distress does the law support granting compassionate appointment.

5.5 Writ of Certiorari and Mandamus

• Certiorari: A writ by which the High Court quashes an order or decision of a public authority if it is illegal, irrational, or procedurally improper.
• Mandamus: A writ that commands a public authority to perform a duty—e.g., to consider an application, follow the law, or in some exceptional cases, to appoint a person.

In this case, certiorari was used to quash the endorsements rejecting the petitioner’s application, and mandamus was effectively used to require the reconsideration of her case within a specified time frame.

5.6 Coordinate Bench

A “Coordinate Bench” is another Bench of the same High Court with the same strength (for example, a single‑judge Bench vis‑à‑vis another single‑judge Bench). While:

• One Coordinate Bench is generally expected to follow another’s decision; and
• If it disagrees, the proper course is to refer the issue to a larger Bench.

Here, Justice Nagaprasanna follows the earlier Coordinate Bench’s conclusion but supplements its reasoning using the Supreme Court’s latest decision.

6. Conclusion: Significance of the Judgment

The Karnataka High Court’s decision in Saroja v. Managing Director, NWKRTC marks an important clarification of the law governing compassionate appointments:

• It reaffirms that compassionate appointment is a narrow, need‑based exception designed to assist indigent families after the death of a serving employee.
• It rejects the practice of turning away dependents “at the gate” merely because they cross a rigid age barrier, especially where the scheme itself allows for relaxation of age.
• It insists
• Employers must undertake a conscious and recorded assessment of the family’s indigence; and
• Only then can age relaxation (or refusal of relaxation) be lawfully considered.

It harmonises the humanitarian ethos of compassionate appointment with the constitutional command of equality by:

• Protecting genuinely destitute families; while
• Preventing the scheme from degenerating into a hereditary or reserved channel of employment.

Practically, this judgment sends a clear message to NWKRTC and similar bodies that policy design and decision‑making must be both humane and legally structured. Age limits remain relevant, but not absolute. The core inquiry is—and must remain—whether the bereaved family is in such financial distress that compassionate appointment is justified notwithstanding the age of the applicant.

In doing so, the Court advances both social justice (by safeguarding widows and dependents in genuine need) and constitutional justice (by preventing arbitrary, mechanical application of employer‑friendly rules). It thus stands as a significant reference point in the evolving jurisprudence on compassionate appointments in India.