ORDER : 1. The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 20.12.2019 passed in Application No. 247/2019 by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Kalaburagi Bench (for short ‘the KAT’) by which endorsement challenging the rejection of petitioner’s request for compassionate appointment is dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the above writ petition are that the petitioner is son of one Kallappa Kamanalli, who was working as Commercial Tax Inspector in the 2nd respondent-Department of Commercial Taxes, who died while in service on 27.03.2016. The petitioner herein filed Application dated 25.08.2016 (Annexure-A3) requesting for compassionate appointment. In the application the petitioner stated annual income of the family as Rs. 90,000/-. The 2nd respondent on consideration of the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment issued endorsement dated 15.09.2016 rejecting the request on the ground that income of the family is more than Rs. 5,00,000/- and as such under Rule 4(1)(a) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules 1996, (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1996 Rules’) the petitioner would not be entitled for compassionate appointment. Challenging the said endorsement the petitioner approached the Tribunal in Application No. 247/2019, which also came to be dismissed by order dated 20.12.2019 holding that there is no infirmity in the endorsement issued by the 2nd respondent. Hence the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 3. Heard Sri. K.M. Ghate, learned counsel for petitioner and Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, learned AGA for the respondents. Perused the writ petition papers. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Tribunal committed manifest error in dismissing the petitioner’s application without properly appreciating the material on record. The learned counsel would submit that the petitioner submitted application in the prescribed format as required under the 1996 Rules, requesting for compassionate appointment. Further it is submitted that petitioner had also produced income certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Indi Taluk dated 23.06.2019 which indicated the income of the family at Rs. 90,000/-. It is also his submission that the petitioner had submitted affidavit stating that in the annual property returns filed by his father, he had inadvertently shown Rs. 5,00,000/- income instead of Rs. 50,000/-. 90,000/-. It is also his submission that the petitioner had submitted affidavit stating that in the annual property returns filed by his father, he had inadvertently shown Rs. 5,00,000/- income instead of Rs. 50,000/-. The 2nd respondent without examining the documents submitted by the petitioner solely relying on the annual property returns filed by the father of the petitioner for the year 2014-2015, rejected the petitioner’s request, which is wholly illegal and arbitrary. Thus he submits that the income of the family as certified by the Tahsildar is Rs. 90,000/- per annum and the petitioner would be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. 5. Per contra, learned AGA justifies the endorsement issued by the 2nd respondent as well as the order passed by the Tribunal. It is submitted that the deceased Government employee in his annual property returns for the year 2014-2015 had shown Rs. 5,00,000/- as agricultural income from his agricultural land at Ulasagi Village. The income stated in the said annual property returns is taken into consideration to determine financial crisis or destitution as required under Rule 4(1) of the 1996 Rules. It is her submission that when the deceased had declared his income in his property returns, which is a self declared one, looking to the income certificate issued by the Tahsildar would not arise. Learned AGA further submits that under Rule 4 of the 1996 Rules a family is considered to be in financial destitution, if the family income is less than total emoluments including dearness allowance, house rent allowance and city compensatory allowance admissible at Bangalore on the average of the minimum and maximum scale of pay of the First Division Assistant. To say that the total salary of FDA in Bangalore is less than Rs. 5,00,000/- statement indicating emoluments of FDA for the year 2014-2015 is placed on record. Thus she submits that as the income of the family is more than Rs. 5,00,000/- the petitioner would not be entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. 6. To say that the total salary of FDA in Bangalore is less than Rs. 5,00,000/- statement indicating emoluments of FDA for the year 2014-2015 is placed on record. Thus she submits that as the income of the family is more than Rs. 5,00,000/- the petitioner would not be entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. 6. On hearing the learned counsel and on perusal of the material on record the only point which falls for consideration is as to “Whether the 2nd respondent is justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment under Rule 4(1) of the 1996 Rules?” The answer to the above point would be in the affirmative for the following reasons: The undisputed facts are that father of the petitioner Sri. Kallappa Kamanalli was working as Commercial Tax Inspector in the 2nd respondent-Department and he died in harness on 27.03.2016. The petitioner being the son of late Kallappa Kamanalli submitted application on 25.08.2016 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. It is also not in dispute that the late government servant Kallappa Kamanalli had submitted Form No. 1 - annual property returns for the period from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015 showing agricultural income as Rs. 5,00,000/- from his agricultural land in Sy. Nos. 273/1, 273/2A and 273/2B of Ulasagi Village. 7. The 1996 Rules governs appointment of dependants of the deceased government servant on compassionate grounds. Rule 4 and 4(1) reads as follows: “4. Conditions of appointment - Appointment on compassionate grounds under these rules shall be subject to the following conditions, namely: (1) The family of the deceased Government servant should be in a financial crisis or destitution. Explanation: (a) Family of a deceased Government servant shall be considered to be in financial crisis or destitution if the recurring monthly income of the family from all sources is less than the total emoluments including Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance and City Compensatory Allowance admissible at Bangalore on the average of the minimum and the maximum of the scale of pay of the post of First Division Assistant, as on the date of making application for compassionate appointment. For calculating such monthly income, the income from family pension, lump-sum pensionary benefits and interest earned thereon shall be excluded. For calculating such monthly income, the income from family pension, lump-sum pensionary benefits and interest earned thereon shall be excluded. (b) Recurring monthly income from all sources other than family pension, lumpsum pensionary benefits and the interest earned thereon, of the family for the purpose of this rule shall be computed by the Head of the Office or the Head of the Department or the Appointing Authority: (i) on the basis of the last annual property return filed by the deceased Government servant and if, for any reason, it is not available, on the basis of a certificate of income issued by a Revenue Officer not below the rank of Tahsildar. (ii) in case any member of the family of the deceased Government servant is employed in any State or Central Government service or a public or private sector undertaking or a private establishment, on the basis of a certificate issued by his employer and in case such member is self employed on the basis of certificate issued by a Revenue Officer not below the rank of Tahsildar. (2) xxx xxx xxx (3) xxx xxx xxx (4) xxx xxx xxx (5) xxx xxx xxx (6) xxx xxx xxx.” The above Rule makes it abundantly clear that precondition for seeking appointment on compassionate ground is that family of the deceased government servant should be in financial crisis or destitution. A family is said to be in financial crisis or destitution if the monthly income of the family from all sources is less than the total emoluments including dearness allowance, house rent allowance and city compensatory allowance admissible at Bangalore on an average of the minimum and maximum of the scale of pay of the First Division Assistant. The respondents along with memo dated 31.05.2021 have placed on record the average of minimum and maximum salary drawn by the First Division Assistant in the year 2015-2016 at Bangalore as Rs. 3,95,055/-. The income of the deceased government servant from other sources shall be computed on the basis of the last annual property returns filed by the deceased government servant and if not available, on the basis of a certificate issued by the Revenue Officer not below the rank of Tahsildar. 8. Admittedly the deceased government servant had filed annual property returns in Form No. 1 for the year 2014-2015 as stated above disclosing Rs. 5,00,000/- as agricultural income. 8. Admittedly the deceased government servant had filed annual property returns in Form No. 1 for the year 2014-2015 as stated above disclosing Rs. 5,00,000/- as agricultural income. The said annual property return is taken as the basis, as indicated in Rule 4(1)(b)(i) of the 1996 Rules and income mentioned therein as Rs. 5,00,000/- is taken by the 2nd respondent to determine the financial crisis or destitution, which is in accordance with the Rules and no fault could be found with the 2nd respondent. The income certificate certified by the Tahsildar (Annexure-A4) could be looked into for determining financial crisis or destitution only in the absence of annual property returns. In the instant case, when annual property returns of the deceased government servant was available, the question of considering certificate of income issued by the Tahsildar would not arise in view of Rule 4(1)(b)(i) of the 1996 Rules. The contention that the deceased government servant by mistake or by inadvertence had mentioned agricultural income as Rs. 5,00,000/- instead of Rs. 50,000/- cannot be accepted, as it is not open for the petitioner to say so, after the demise of his father. Moreover, it cannot be considered as a mistake, since in the property returns for the year 2013-2014 the income from agriculture is shown at Rs. 4,00,000/-. Thus there is no merit in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. 9. All appointments to the Civil Posts under the State shall be made strictly in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Scheme of appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception in order to remove the financial crisis or destitution of the family of the deceased government servant. Rule 3 of the 1996 Rules makes it clear that appointment on compassionate grounds shall not be claimed as a matter of right and shall not be given as a matter of course. The whole object of providing compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased government servant to tide over the sudden crisis. Mere death of a government servant would not entitle a family member for an employment, but he has to fulfill certain conditions of the 1996 Rules. At the same time, the appointing authority, under Rule 4 of the 1996 Rules is required to examine the financial crisis or destitution of the family of the deceased government servant. 10. Mere death of a government servant would not entitle a family member for an employment, but he has to fulfill certain conditions of the 1996 Rules. At the same time, the appointing authority, under Rule 4 of the 1996 Rules is required to examine the financial crisis or destitution of the family of the deceased government servant. 10. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly stands dismissed.