Compassionate Appointment can’t be denied due to Age Limit
On October 14, 2025, the Karnataka High Court ruled that a woman should not be denied a job on compassionate grounds only because she is over the age limit mentioned in the service rules, especially when her family is facing financial hardship.
Saroja, 47 years old, is the wife of Kondai, a KSRTC (Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation) employee. He worked with KSRTC from April 4, 2006, until his sudden death on September 27, 2023. After her husband’s death, who was the only earning member of the family, Saroja applied for a job on compassionate grounds.
However, her application was rejected on January 17, 2025, because she was above the age limit of 43 years. She was 47 at the time of her husband’s death. After the rejection, she sent a representation explaining her family’s financial problems but department did not provide her compassionate appointment.
The endorsement stated that she could not be given compassionate appointment because she was 47 years, 2 months, and 24 days old when her husband died. She challenged the decision in the Karnataka High Court.
The Karnataka High Court said that compassionate appointments should be guided by humanity, not strict rules. The authorities rejected her request only because she crossed the age limit. The Court noted that compassionate jobs are meant to help families facing sudden financial problems. The policy also allows relaxation of age in deserving cases, so the automatic rejection without considering her financial need was not correct. The Court ordered a fresh review of her case.
The Karnataka High Court said that in a similar case (W.P. No. 102208 of 2025), decided on August 14, 2025, the Court held that just because a person is over 43 years old, the appointment cannot be denied. The Court said cases like this need a humane policy.
The Karnataka High Court agreed with the earlier ruling but added more clarity. It referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Canara Bank vs. Ajithkumar G.K. (2025), which looked at the entire law on compassionate appointments from earlier cases, such as Umeshkumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana (1994) and State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari (2025).
The Court said the Supreme Court had framed several issues, including whether an application can be rejected only because the applicant crossed the cut-off age, without checking the actual need for compassionate appointment.
The Court said the Supreme Court had held that the main factor should be the family’s need for compassionate appointment. But in this case, no such analysis was done.
Because of this, the Karnataka High Court said the petition must succeed. It directed the corporation to reconsider Saroja’s application by looking at her circumstances and allowing relaxation in age if needed.
