LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

The Director of Treasuries in Karnataka & Anr. v. V. Somyashree

Civil Appeal · 2021 INSC 472Decided 13 Sept 2021
Civil Appeal No. 5122 of 2021
Justice M.R. Shah · Justice Aniruddha Bose

Background

A Karnataka government employee (Second Division Assistant) died in 2012, survived by a married daughter. Soon after her mother's death, the daughter obtained a divorce by mutual consent and, the very next day, applied for a compassionate appointment. Her application was rejected because the applicable 1996 Rules allowed compassionate appointment only to an "unmarried" or "widowed" daughter, not a divorced one. After the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dismissed her challenge, the Karnataka High Court ruled in her favour, holding that a divorced daughter should be treated on par with an unmarried or widowed daughter, and directed the State to reconsider her case.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court reversed the High Court. It held that the 1996 Rules, as they stood at the relevant time, did not include "divorced daughter" within the definition of a "dependent" eligible for compassionate appointment: that category was added only by a 2021 amendment, and the norms prevailing on the date the application is considered govern eligibility. The Court also noted that the daughter was still married when her mother died, and obtained her divorce only afterward, immediately followed by her application: a chronology suggesting the divorce was engineered to create eligibility rather than genuinely existing eligibility. On both grounds, the Court held she could not qualify, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed her original writ petition.

Lesson Learnt

Eligibility for a government compassionate-appointment scheme is judged by the rules in force on the relevant date (e.g., the date of the employee's death or the date of consideration), not by later amendments; and courts will scrutinise a legal status (like a quick divorce) obtained only to create eligibility for a benefit.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case