Karnataka High Court
K Abdul S/O K Shafiulla Sattar vs The Executive Engineer Ele on 19 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2640
WP No. 106229 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 106229 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
K. ABDUL S/O K. SHAFIULLA SATTAR,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: WARD NO.4, AJAD NAGAR,
NEAR AIRTEL TOWER KUDLIGI,
TQ/DIST: BALLARI- 583 101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELE,
TL AND SS DIVISION,
KPTCL, MUNIRABAD- 583 233,
DISTRICT: KOPPAL.
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (ELE),
MANJANNA O. AND M. DIVISION, GESCOM,
E BALLARI, TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI- 583101.
...RESPONDENTS
Digitally signed by
MANJANNA E
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR R. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2026.02.27 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
17:05:38 +0530
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
ENDORSEMENT DATED. 08-07-2024 BEARING NO. aa(vi)/ uleni/ lea/
salea/ hisa(saa)/2024-25/1725 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AT
VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO
CONSIDER THE APPLICATION AT VIDE ANNEXURE-D. DATED
11-05-2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT
NO.1 IN FORM NO.1 APPOINT THE PETITIONER IN ANY SUITABLE
POST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2640
WP No. 106229 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has called in question the endorsement dated 08.07.2024 (Annexure-H), issued by the respondent- Corporation, whereby, the claim for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. Brief facts:
2. The petitioner claims to be the adopted son of late K. Shafihulla, who was working as a station attendant under respondent-Corporation and died in harness on 05.12.2019. The petitioner relies upon the registered deed of adoption dated 09.02.2007 executed during the life time of the deceased employee. After the death of the employee, the petitioner submitted an application dated 11.05.2020 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The claim was initially rejected by endorsement dated 24.07.2020. The petitioner challenged the same in -3- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2640 WP No. 106229 of 2024 HC-KAR W.P.101509/2021. By order dated 12.07.2023, this Court quashed the endorsement and directed reconsideration of the petitioner's claim in accordance with law.
3. The respondent-Corporation after reconsideration, issued the present impugned endorsement dated 08.07.2024, again rejecting the claim on the following grounds:
i. Adoption is not recognized under Mohammedean personal law.
ii. The petitioner has not been adopted in accordance with the Juvenile Justice Act, 2008 procedure ('JJ Act' for short). iii. Service and educational records reflect a different parental name.
iv. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be treated as an adopted son.-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2640 WP No. 106229 of 2024 HC-KAR Aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the legally adopted son under a registered adoption deed. The adoption deed has not been set aside by any competent Civil Court and the respondent-Corporation has no jurisdiction to question the validity of the adoption.
It is submitted that in the earlier writ petition having resulted in a direction to reconsider, the authority was bound to consider the claim in accordance with law and that the core issue under compassionate appointment is dependency, and not personal law validity. He relies upon the following decisions:
i. Shanu Kumar Vs. The Nagar Ayukt Municpal (Commissioner) Nagar Nigam Lko. And Others1 (Shanu Kumar), to contend that an administrative authority cannot invalidate a registered adoption deed. 1 W.A.No.493/2024 D.D 24.11.2025 -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2640 WP No. 106229 of 2024 HC-KAR ii. K. Heerajohn Vs. The District Registrar Madurai District, Madurai2 (K. Heerajohn), to contend that the authorities cannot reject adoption solely on religious consideration. iii. Shaukat Ali Son of Somu Khan Vs. Union of India and Others3 (Shaukat) to contend that the adoption cannot be rejected merely on the ground that Muslim law does not recognize adoption.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contends that the Muslim personal law does not recognize adoption. Reliance is placed on the decision of Dagadabai (dead) by Lrs Vs. Abbas @ Gulab Rustum Pinjari4 (Dagadabai).
6. Further, it is contended that the adoption of Muslims can only be under the JJ Act and places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Shabnam Hashmi Vs. 2 W.P.(MD) No.27615/2025 D.D 17.10.2025 3 Original Application No.290/00318/15 4 (2017) 13 SCC 705 -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2640 WP No. 106229 of 2024 HC-KAR Union of India and Others5 (Shabnam Hashmi). He further submits that the petitioner has not followed the JJ Act procedure and service records do not reflect the adoption. Learned counsel for the respondent further relies upon P. Samuel Joseph Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Labour and Others6 (Samuel Joseph) to contend that mere adoption deed is insufficient and further in C. Pakkir Maideen and Others Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government, Chennai and Others7 (Pakkir Maideen) to contend that the adoption must comply with the JJ Act procedure.
7. This Court has carefully considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. The point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether respondent-Corporation was justified in questioning the validity or recognition of the 5 (2014) 4 SCC 1 6 W.P.No.1628/2019 D.D 10.10.2025 7 W.P.(MD)No.18174/2018 D.D 12.11.2024 -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2640 WP No. 106229 of 2024 HC-KAR petitioner's adoption while considering compassionate appointment?"
8. It is well-settled law that the compassionate appointment is not a mode of recruitment, but an exception carved out to mitigate the hardship caused by the death of an employee in harness. The compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate relief to the family in financial distress and therefore the governing test is dependency and financial hardship, not merely status. Though status may play a relevant role, it is not determinative.
9. The impugned endorsement reveals that the authority has undertaken an examination of:
i. Whether adoption is recognized under Muslim personal law.
ii. Whether adoption was under JJ Act. iii. Whether the deed is legally valid. -8-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2640 WP No. 106229 of 2024 HC-KAR
10. In Shabnam Hashmi, the Apex Court held that JJ Act is an enabling legislation, permitting adoption irrespective of religion. The reliance placed on Shabnam Hashmi by the respondents to contend that non- compliance with JJ Act renders adoption void is misconceived, since the judgment does not state or authorize employees to invalidate adoption on that ground. In Pakkir Maideen, the issue concerned registration of adoption deed and compliance with JJ Act did not involve compassionate appointment neither Samuel Joseph. The Court had examined whether adoption was legally established under the applicable statutory framework neither judgment authorizes any authority to adjudicate validity of an adoption in an administrative proceedings.
11. It is also significant to note that earlier round of litigation, this Court directed reconsideration and the present rejection substantially reiterates the same ground, thereby failing to meaningfully comply with the earlier directions. The impugned endorsement does not examine: -9-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2640 WP No. 106229 of 2024 HC-KAR i. Whether the petitioner was financially dependent.
ii. Whether he was residing with the deceased employee.
iii. Whether there was any other eligible dependants.
iv. Whether the family is in financial distress. The authority has focused entirely on the personal law validity and technical objections, without examining the foundational requirement of dependency.
12. The correct enquiry and a compassionate appointment scheme is:
i. Whether the petitioner answers the descriptions of dependent family members. ii. Whether he satisfies financial criteria.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2640 WP No. 106229 of 2024 HC-KAR iii. Whether appointment would serve the object of the scheme.
13. The impugned endorsement thus suffers from lack of jurisdiction in adjudicating the validity of adoption, misapplication of precedents, failure to consider relevant factors (dependency), and consideration of irrelevant factors (personal law recognition).
14. For the foregoing reasons, this Court holds that the impugned endorsement is legally unsustainable and the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following:
ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned endorsement dated 08.07.2024 (Annexure-H) is quashed.
iii. The respondents are directed to reconsider the petitioner's application for compassionate
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2640 WP No. 106229 of 2024 HC-KAR appointment afresh, strictly in accordance with the governing scheme.
iv. While reconsidering, the respondent shall examine:
a. Whether the petitioner was dependent on the deceased employee at the time of death and his name finds place in the service records. b. Whether he satisfies the definition of dependent family member.
c. Whether the family is in financial distress. d. Any other eligibility criteria under the scheme. v. The respondent shall not reject the claim solely on the ground that the adoption is not recognized under the personal law, nor shall they adjudicate upon the validity of the registered adoption deed.
vi. If the respondents dispute the adoption, the remedy lies before the competent Civil Court.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2640 WP No. 106229 of 2024 HC-KAR vii. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36