High Court Rules Widow Eligible for Husband’s Job Even After Crossing Age Limit

A significant judgment by the Karnataka High Court has brought relief to families struggling after the sudden death of their sole breadwinner. The court has ruled that a widow cannot be denied compassionate appointment merely because she has crossed the prescribed age limit. According to the court, humanitarian considerations and the financial distress of the family must take precedence over rigid administrative rules.

Why This Judgment Matters

Compassionate appointments are designed to support families who lose their earning member unexpectedly. In most cases, a spouse—usually the wife—is considered for the job so that the family can survive financially. However, a common obstacle arises when the applicant is older than the maximum permissible age for recruitment. This has led to the rejection of many applications, causing further distress for already grieving families.

The latest High Court verdict puts the spotlight on this issue and clarifies that age alone should not become a barrier when the purpose of compassionate appointment is immediate relief.

The Case: What Happened?

Sarojamma, a 47-year-old woman, found herself facing financial uncertainty after the death of her husband, Kondayi, who had been working with KSRTC since 2006. He passed away on September 27, 2023, while on duty. As the family’s only earning member, his sudden death left the household without any income.

To support her family, Sarojamma applied for compassionate appointment under KSRTC’s policy. However, on January 17, 2025, her application was rejected. The corporation cited that she was 47 years old, while the upper age limit under the scheme was 43.

Feeling that the decision was unfair and contrary to the purpose of compassionate appointments, she approached the Karnataka High Court seeking justice.

Why the Court Ruled in Her Favour

The High Court emphasized that the core objective of compassionate appointment is to offer immediate economic support to bereaved families. Applying age limits mechanically, without considering the family’s circumstances, defeats the very intention of the policy.

The court also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Canara Bank vs. Ajithkumar (2025), which stated that authorities must evaluate whether the family genuinely faces financial hardship, rather than denying relief solely based on age criteria.

Humanitarian concerns, the court said, must outweigh technical rules in such cases.

What the High Court Ordered

The Karnataka High Court set aside the rejection order issued by KSRTC. It directed the corporation to reconsider Sarojamma’s application within eight weeks. The court instructed KSRTC to explore how the age limit could be relaxed or managed, given the exceptional circumstances of the case.

The judgment highlighted that compassionate appointment schemes are meant to address human suffering, not add to it. Therefore, rigid adherence to age restrictions cannot be allowed to overshadow the purpose of the scheme.

A Landmark Decision for Many Families

This verdict is not only a relief for Sarojamma but also a significant development for countless families facing similar struggles. For many dependents of government employees, securing a job after the loss of a loved one becomes the only way to sustain themselves. However, age restrictions often prevent them from getting the support they desperately need.

The High Court’s decision reinforces that compassionate appointments should be guided by empathy, fairness, and real-life challenges rather than administrative rigidity.

Why This Judgement Sets an Important Precedent

• It acknowledges real-world hardship over bureaucratic limits.

• It aligns compassionate appointment policies with their true purpose.

• It reinforces the principle that welfare-oriented schemes must be implemented with flexibility.

• It is a hope for those who are denied jobs due to age limits despite severe financial crisis.

This ruling serves as a ray of hope for many families who lose their earning member unexpectedly. It reaffirms the judiciary’s stand that compassion and humanity should remain at the heart of employment policies meant for distressed families.