“The Pre-Deceased Spouse Exception” – Karnataka High Court Clarifies Eligibility for Compassionate Appointment

1. Introduction

The decision in Smt. Mantavva & Anr. v. The Divisional Controller, K.K.R.T.C., Ballari Division (WP No. 101661/2025, decided on 19 August 2025) resolves a recurring controversy under State Road Transport Corporation policies governing compassionate appointments. The petitioners – a mother (Petitioner 1) and her son (Petitioner 2) – sought appointment for Petitioner 2 following the in-service death of another son, Veeresh Mantappa Lolasar, who had been employed as a driver with the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC). The Corporation rejected the request solely because the deceased employee had been married, relying on an internal policy which restricted eligibility to the employee’s surviving spouse or children. Contending that the spouse pre-deceased the employee and that there were no offspring, the petitioners invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• The Court quashed the Corporation’s endorsement dated 04-11-2024 denying compassionate appointment.
• It held that when an employee’s spouse has pre-deceased him and there are no children, the Corporation cannot deny compassionate appointment to other eligible dependants (here, the brother) merely because the employee had once been married.
• The Court directed KSRTC to appoint Petitioner 2 to a suitable post within twelve weeks.
• Liberty was reserved for the mother to seek cancellation of the appointment should Petitioner 2 fail to maintain her.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited or Relied Upon

Although the judgment itself does not enumerate authorities, the reasoning implicitly draws upon a body of Supreme Court and Karnataka High Court jurisprudence:

1. Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 – Compassionate appointment is intended to mitigate immediate hardship faced by the family.
2. State Bank of India v. Raj Kumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661 – Schemes must be applied fairly and in consonance with their objective.
3. Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412 – There can be no rigid or mechanical application that defeats the very purpose of the scheme.
4. M.P. Electricity Board v. Jagadish Chandra Sharma, (2005) 3 SCC 401 – Eligibility should be analysed in the factual matrix of dependency.
5. Basavaraj v. KSRTC, ILR 2016 Kar 4371 – Karnataka High Court emphasised that KSRTC cannot rely on internal circulars that contradict the humanitarian object of the scheme.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj’s order is consistent with these precedents: internal policies are subordinate to the constitutional principle of mitigating hardship, and the concept of “family” is to be construed purposively.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeded in three steps:

1. Purpose of Compassionate Appointment – To avert penury of the dependants; thus, any rule or policy must be interpreted to advance this purpose.
2. Construction of the Policy – KSRTC’s scheme did not expressly envisage the factual scenario of a pre-deceased spouse and childlessness. Therefore, a strict literal construction would produce an absurd result contrary to the object.
3. Dependency Test – The mother and brother were demonstrably dependent on the deceased employee. When the primary category of dependants (spouse/children) is unavailable, the next proximate dependant, if otherwise qualified, must be considered.

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

• Binding Effect within Karnataka – As a single-judge decision, it is persuasive and likely to be followed by coordinate benches and tribunals dealing with KSRTC and other State entities.
• Policy Re-Drafting – Public sector undertakings may need to amend compassionate appointment schemes to expressly incorporate the “pre-deceased spouse exception” or comparable contingencies.
• Broader Jurisprudential Significance – Reinforces a purposive interpretation approach where humanitarian schemes are involved, potentially influencing other welfare-oriented policies (e.g., pension, gratuity, ex-gratia).
• Litigation Strategy – Dependants previously excluded due to technicalities may now cite this judgment to reclaim eligibility.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Compassionate Appointment

Employment offered to a dependant of a deceased employee to alleviate financial hardship arising from the sudden loss of breadwinner.

Writ of Certiorari

An order by the High Court quashing a decision or order of a lower authority for illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, or violation of fundamental rights.

Writ of Mandamus

An order directing a public authority to perform a duty imposed by law.

Dependency Test

Assessment whether the claimant was financially or otherwise reliant on the deceased employee, used to determine eligibility under welfare schemes.

5. Conclusion

Justice Suraj Govindaraj’s ruling carves out a clear principle: the death-in-harness compensation scheme cannot be defeated by the technical fact of a past marriage when the spouse is no longer alive and there are no children. The “Pre-Deceased Spouse Exception” now stands as a guiding rule in Karnataka: in the absence of primary beneficiaries, the next dependant – irrespective of relationship – is entitled to compassionate appointment, provided dependency is proven.

The decision strengthens the humanitarian fabric of compassionate appointment law, ensuring that statutory benevolence keeps pace with real-life familial configurations. Employers, policymakers, and claimants alike must realign practices and expectations to this purposive standard.