Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1490
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO._______OF 2025
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. 26798 of 2025)
MANAGING DIRECTOR, M.P. STATE AGRICULTURAL
MARKETING BOARD AND ORS. ...APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
HARPAL SINGH AND ORS. …RESPONDENT (S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. The present Civil Appeal has been preferred by the
Managing Director, M.P. State Agricultural Marketing Board
and Ors. (hereinafter referred to as “the appellants”), being
th
aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 7 April 2025
passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in
Writ Appeal No. 894 of 2025.
Signature Not Verified
3. By the impugned judgment, the order dated 24th
Digitally signed by
POOJA SHARMA
Date: 2025.12.20
14:24:17 IST
Reason:
January 2025 passed by a Single Bench of the High Court
Page 1 of 13
in Writ Petition No. 36707 of 2024 was upheld whereby the
Single Bench had directed the competent authorities to
sympathetically consider the compassionate appointment of
Harpal Singh, the Respondent no. 1, to a lower post (Class-
IV) subject to his willingness to serve in such post.
4. A reference to the facts in brief will facilitate
appreciating the issue involved. The issue pertains to the
claim of the Respondent no. 1 for appointment on
compassionate ground. The Respondent no. 1 is the son of
th
Late Shri Ramjilal Kushwah, who died in harness on 28
February 2019, while serving as a Peon in the Krishi Upaj
Mandi Samiti, Alampur, District Bhind, Madhya Pradesh.
5. Thereafter, in accordance with the policy governing
compassionate appointment, issued by the General
Administration Department, Government of Madhya
Pradesh, vide Memorandum No. C-3-12/2013/1/3 dated
th
29 September 2014, the Respondent no. 1 was sanctioned
appointment on compassionate ground to a Class-III post,
namely Assistant Grade-III, in the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti,
Morena, as per sanction order issued by the Additional
Director (Personnel), M.P. State Agricultural Marketing
Page 2 of 13
th
Board, on 26 August 2020, which was followed by the
th
appointment order dated 11 September 2020 issued by the
Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Morena.
6. However, it merits emphasis that as per Clause 6.5
of the above-mentioned Government Memorandum dated
th
29 September 2014, an appointment to the post of
Assistant Grade-III was conditional, as the concerned
candidate had to clear the Computer Proficiency
Certification Test (CPCT) within three years of joining
service. The afore-mentioned Clause 6.5 is reproduced
hereunder:
“ 6.5 For the grant of compassionate appointment to the
dependant of Government Servant on the post of
Assistant Grade-3, 3 years time will be given for
passing Computer Diploma and Computer Typing
Certificate Exam from the recognized institute . In
case of not passing the required exams within the
prescribed period of 3 years, in view of the attempts of
passing exams by the concerned employee and the
typing eligibility as acquired by him, period of 1 year
may be further extended by the Appointing
Authority . In case of not passing the required exams by
the concerned employee even after the expiry of this
period, his services could be terminated. ”
7.
In consonance with the above Clause, the
th
appointment order of the Respondent no. 1, dated 11
September 2020, expressly stipulated that he is required to
acquire the requisite computer qualifications within a period
Page 3 of 13
of three years. This caveat was incorporated in Conditions
No. 15 and 16 of the appointment order, which lie at the
heart of the present litigation and are reproduced hereunder:
“ 15. It shall be mandatory to pass CPCT Examination
within a period of 3 years from the institution
recognized from the Government . The service will be
terminated in case of not passing mentioned examination
within the prescribed time period.
16. It shall be mandatory to pass Computer Examination
within 3 years from an institution among following
recognized institutions along with passing Computer
Typing Proficiency Certificate Examination from a
recognized institution. The service will be terminated in
case of not passing mentioned examination within the
prescribed time period.
(i) Diploma from any University recognized by U.G.C.
(ii) Diploma from any Open University recognized by
U.G.C.
(iii) Diploma Level Examination from D.O.E.A.C.C.
(iv) Modern Office Management Course from Government
Polytechnic College.
(v) One Year ‘Computer Operator and Programming
Assistant’ (COPA) Certificate from Government I.T.I. ”
8. The dispute arose when notwithstanding the expiry
of the stipulated three-year period under Condition No. 15,
and in spite of grant of an additional one-year extension from
th th
15 September 2023 to 14 September 2024, the
Respondent no. 1 failed to obtain and submit the requisite
CPCT scorecard, culminating in the termination of his
th
services vide order dated 30 September 2024 issued by the
appointing authority.
Page 4 of 13
9. Aggrieved thereby, the Respondent no. 1 filed a Writ
Petition, being No. 36707 of 2024, before the High Court
seeking quashing and setting aside of his termination order
and restoration of his service in the department. The Single
Bench of the High Court while refraining from setting aside
the termination order and emphasising the underlying
welfare purpose of compassionate appointment, directed the
competent authorities to sympathetically consider the case
of the Respondent no. 1 for appointment to a lower post
(Class-IV) in which CPCT qualification is not mandatory,
subject to expressing his willingness to serve in such post.
It is this direction, affirmed by the Division Bench of the
High Court, that forms the subject matter of challenge in the
present appeal.
10. Before embarking upon the merits of the case, it is
apposite at this juncture to highlight the underlying
principles of compassionate appointments, as this Court
cannot remain oblivious to the human realities that animate
disputes of this nature. It is a harsh reality that the sudden
loss of a breadwinner does not merely extinguish a life; it
often disrupts the economic stability of the entire household.
Page 5 of 13
11. In families where a deceased stood as the only
source of sustenance, death carries with it not only
emotional devastation but the looming threat of deprivation,
insecurity and social marginalisation. A welfare State,
committed to the Constitutional ideals of justice with the
mandate of reducing inequality, promoting social justice and
ensuring a basic standard of living for all, cannot afford to
allow such bereaved families to slide into destitution by the
mechanical operation of procedural formalities.
Significantly, a responsibility has been cast upon the State
under the provisions of Part IV of the Constitution of India,
i.e., Article 39 of the Directive Principles of State Policy to
serve such a welfare State. Thus, the policy of
compassionate appointment is not a concession, largesse or
mercy shown to hapless dependents of a deceased employee,
but a structured response of the State to ensure that the
death of an employee does not mark the beginning of
economic calamity for those left behind. It is from this
vantage point that the competing claims in the present
appeal must be examined.
Page 6 of 13
12. This Court has in numerous occasions elucidated
the underlying humanitarian purpose of compassionate
appointment. The principle was articulated lucidly in
1
Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh , wherein
this Court observed as follows:
“ 8. The rule of appointments to public service is that they
should be on merits and through open invitation. It is the
normal route through which one can get into a public
employment. However, as every rule can have
exceptions, there are a few exceptions to the said rule
also which have been evolved to meet certain
contingencies. As per one such exception relief is
provided to the bereaved family of a deceased employee
by accommodating one of his dependants in a vacancy.
The object is to give succour to the family which
has been suddenly plunged into penury due to the
untimely death of its sole breadwinner. This Court
has observed time and again that the object of providing
such ameliorating relief should not be taken as opening
an alternative mode of recruitment to public
employment. ”
13. In light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the
considered opinion that both the Single and Division Bench
of the High Court rightly directed the competent authority to
consider the case of Respondent no. 1 for compassionate
appointment to a lower post (Class IV), which does not
require CPCT qualification. The undertaking furnished by
Respondent no. 1 to be considered for appointment to a
lower post (Class-IV), identical to the one held by his
1
(1997) 8 SCC 85.
Page 7 of 13
deceased father, does not entail any relaxation of eligibility
norms, nor does it confer upon him any undue or
undeserved advantage.
14. The appellants, relying upon various judgments
2
such as Sadananda Halo v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh , Vijendra
3
Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission , and Manish
4
Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar , among others, contended
that after taking part in the selection process, knowing fully
well the procedure, the Respondent no. 1 cannot challenge
it later. We have perused the judgments relied upon by the
appellants, but these have no relevance to the instant case,
as the material facts in those cases are clearly
distinguishable from the facts of the present matter. The
afore-mentioned cases do not deal with the issue of
compassionate appointments, which is an exception to the
‘rule of equality’ in the matters of public employment, as was
5
held in General Manager, State Bank of India v. Anju Jain
and wholly distinct from the usual process of ‘direct
recruitment’. Had this been a case of ‘direct recruitment’, the
2
(2008) 4 SCC 619
3
(2011) 1 SCC 150
4
(2010) 12 SCC 576
5
(2008) 8 SCC 475
Page 8 of 13
Respondent no. 1 could not, in any circumstances, have
been allowed to be considered for a lower post in lieu of,
failing to satisfy the qualifications of the higher post. This
distinction was also rightly made by the Single Bench of the
th
High Court, in the order dated 24 January 2025. In
addition, the Single Bench had rightly observed that it was
the appellants themselves who had appointed the
Respondent no. 1 to a higher post, namely, Assistant Grade-
III, despite his not possessing the CPCT qualification.
15. Taking into account the humanitarian objective of
the compassionate appointment scheme along with the
surrounding circumstances, where the Respondent no. 1
fulfils all other essential qualifications and has also
rendered prima facie unblemished service for a continuous
period of four years, directing the competent authority to
consider him for appointment to a Class-IV post cannot be
said to transgress any statutory or policy conditions. No
prejudice is caused to the administration or to any candidate
by such a measure. On the contrary, it aligns with the
institutional responsibility to implement welfare policies in
a manner that preserves the beneficial character.
Page 9 of 13
16. Additionally, directing the case of the Respondent
no. 1 to be considered against a Class-IV post does not
violate Clause 13.1 of the Government of Madhya Pradesh
th
Memorandum dated 29 September 2014, which stipulates
that a compassionate appointment once granted shall not be
granted again on any other post. In the present case, the
Respondent no. 1 is not seeking a “second” or fresh
compassionate appointment. Instead, the relief sought is
merely a downward adjustment to a Class IV post, which is
analogous to a reallocation within the same establishment
and framework to preserve the object of the social welfare
scheme. Thus, the appellants’ reliance on Clause 13.1 is
misplaced and reflects an unduly literal interpretation
divorced from context and purpose, especially where
termination would defeat the very purpose for which the
appointment was granted.
17. It can be safely concluded that a narrow or
mechanical construction of the rules governing
compassionate appointment cannot be permitted to override
the welfare-oriented purpose of the scheme. Where a
procedural rigidity ceases to advance the humanitarian
Page 10 of 13
intent of the policy and instead operates as an obstacle to
its effective implementation, such a procedure must be
construed liberally to ensure that justice is not sacrificed at
the altar of technicality. In this context, it is apposite to
recall the sagacious observations of V. R. Krishna Iyer, J. in
6
Sushil Kumar Sen vs. State of Bihar :
“Justice is the goal of jurisprudence – processual, as
much as substantive. While this appeal has to be
allowed, ………………, I must sound a pessimistic note
that it is too puritanical for a legal system to sacrifice
the end product of equity and good conscience at the
altar of processual punctiliousness and it is not too
radical to avert a breakdown of obvious justice by
bending sharply, if need be, the prescriptions of
procedure. The wages of procedural sin should never be
the death of rights.”
18. In this background, it is incumbent upon both the
concerned government departments and the Courts to adopt
a humane and purposive approach, ensuring that the spirit
of the scheme prevails over strict or pedantic readings of its
procedural stipulations. Procedures and technicalities in
welfare schemes are meant to provide structure, not to
become cracks through which the most vulnerable slip.
When interpretation widens those cracks instead of
6
1975 (1) SCC 774
Page 11 of 13
narrowing them, the wall ceases to protect and begins to
endanger.
19. It is also necessary to emphasise that a
compassionate appointment, arising out of the death of an
employee in harness, operates within a distinct framework
carved out to address an exceptional situation. Such
appointments are made against posts earmarked under the
compassionate appointment scheme and do not trench upon
vacancies meant for regular recruitment or for candidates
belonging to other categories. In the absence of any
demonstrable prejudice to similarly situated candidates or
encroachment upon the rights of others, a direction to
consider appointment of the Respondent no. 1 under the
said scheme cannot be said to violate either the mandate of
equality under Article 14 or the guarantee of equality of
opportunity in matters of public employment under Article
16 of the Constitution of India. Compassionate
appointment, being a narrowly tailored welfare measure,
stands on a distinct footing and does not militate against the
principles governing open competition in public employment
as the appellants have sought to make out.
Page 12 of 13
20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit
in this appeal, and the same is dismissed.
th
21. Consequently, we uphold the order dated 7 April,
2025 passed in Writ Appeal No. 894 of 2025 and direct the
appellants to consider the case of the Respondent no. 1 for
compassionate appointment to a Class-IV post,
expeditiously and within six weeks.
22. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
.
……..……………J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
……..…………..….……………….………J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 28, 2025
Page 13 of 13
2025 INSC 1490
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO._______OF 2025
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. 26798 of 2025)
MANAGING DIRECTOR, M.P. STATE AGRICULTURAL
MARKETING BOARD AND ORS. ...APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
HARPAL SINGH AND ORS. …RESPONDENT (S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. The present Civil Appeal has been preferred by the
Managing Director, M.P. State Agricultural Marketing Board
and Ors. (hereinafter referred to as “the appellants”), being
th
aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 7 April 2025
passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in
Writ Appeal No. 894 of 2025.
Signature Not Verified
3. By the impugned judgment, the order dated 24th
Digitally signed by
POOJA SHARMA
Date: 2025.12.20
14:24:17 IST
Reason:
January 2025 passed by a Single Bench of the High Court
Page 1 of 13
in Writ Petition No. 36707 of 2024 was upheld whereby the
Single Bench had directed the competent authorities to
sympathetically consider the compassionate appointment of
Harpal Singh, the Respondent no. 1, to a lower post (Class-
IV) subject to his willingness to serve in such post.
4. A reference to the facts in brief will facilitate
appreciating the issue involved. The issue pertains to the
claim of the Respondent no. 1 for appointment on
compassionate ground. The Respondent no. 1 is the son of
th
Late Shri Ramjilal Kushwah, who died in harness on 28
February 2019, while serving as a Peon in the Krishi Upaj
Mandi Samiti, Alampur, District Bhind, Madhya Pradesh.
5. Thereafter, in accordance with the policy governing
compassionate appointment, issued by the General
Administration Department, Government of Madhya
Pradesh, vide Memorandum No. C-3-12/2013/1/3 dated
th
29 September 2014, the Respondent no. 1 was sanctioned
appointment on compassionate ground to a Class-III post,
namely Assistant Grade-III, in the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti,
Morena, as per sanction order issued by the Additional
Director (Personnel), M.P. State Agricultural Marketing
Page 2 of 13
th
Board, on 26 August 2020, which was followed by the
th
appointment order dated 11 September 2020 issued by the
Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Morena.
6. However, it merits emphasis that as per Clause 6.5
of the above-mentioned Government Memorandum dated
th
29 September 2014, an appointment to the post of
Assistant Grade-III was conditional, as the concerned
candidate had to clear the Computer Proficiency
Certification Test (CPCT) within three years of joining
service. The afore-mentioned Clause 6.5 is reproduced
hereunder:
“ 6.5 For the grant of compassionate appointment to the
dependant of Government Servant on the post of
Assistant Grade-3, 3 years time will be given for
passing Computer Diploma and Computer Typing
Certificate Exam from the recognized institute . In
case of not passing the required exams within the
prescribed period of 3 years, in view of the attempts of
passing exams by the concerned employee and the
typing eligibility as acquired by him, period of 1 year
may be further extended by the Appointing
Authority . In case of not passing the required exams by
the concerned employee even after the expiry of this
period, his services could be terminated. ”
7.
In consonance with the above Clause, the
th
appointment order of the Respondent no. 1, dated 11
September 2020, expressly stipulated that he is required to
acquire the requisite computer qualifications within a period
Page 3 of 13
of three years. This caveat was incorporated in Conditions
No. 15 and 16 of the appointment order, which lie at the
heart of the present litigation and are reproduced hereunder:
“ 15. It shall be mandatory to pass CPCT Examination
within a period of 3 years from the institution
recognized from the Government . The service will be
terminated in case of not passing mentioned examination
within the prescribed time period.
16. It shall be mandatory to pass Computer Examination
within 3 years from an institution among following
recognized institutions along with passing Computer
Typing Proficiency Certificate Examination from a
recognized institution. The service will be terminated in
case of not passing mentioned examination within the
prescribed time period.
(i) Diploma from any University recognized by U.G.C.
(ii) Diploma from any Open University recognized by
U.G.C.
(iii) Diploma Level Examination from D.O.E.A.C.C.
(iv) Modern Office Management Course from Government
Polytechnic College.
(v) One Year ‘Computer Operator and Programming
Assistant’ (COPA) Certificate from Government I.T.I. ”
8. The dispute arose when notwithstanding the expiry
of the stipulated three-year period under Condition No. 15,
and in spite of grant of an additional one-year extension from
th th
15 September 2023 to 14 September 2024, the
Respondent no. 1 failed to obtain and submit the requisite
CPCT scorecard, culminating in the termination of his
th
services vide order dated 30 September 2024 issued by the
appointing authority.
Page 4 of 13
9. Aggrieved thereby, the Respondent no. 1 filed a Writ
Petition, being No. 36707 of 2024, before the High Court
seeking quashing and setting aside of his termination order
and restoration of his service in the department. The Single
Bench of the High Court while refraining from setting aside
the termination order and emphasising the underlying
welfare purpose of compassionate appointment, directed the
competent authorities to sympathetically consider the case
of the Respondent no. 1 for appointment to a lower post
(Class-IV) in which CPCT qualification is not mandatory,
subject to expressing his willingness to serve in such post.
It is this direction, affirmed by the Division Bench of the
High Court, that forms the subject matter of challenge in the
present appeal.
10. Before embarking upon the merits of the case, it is
apposite at this juncture to highlight the underlying
principles of compassionate appointments, as this Court
cannot remain oblivious to the human realities that animate
disputes of this nature. It is a harsh reality that the sudden
loss of a breadwinner does not merely extinguish a life; it
often disrupts the economic stability of the entire household.
Page 5 of 13
11. In families where a deceased stood as the only
source of sustenance, death carries with it not only
emotional devastation but the looming threat of deprivation,
insecurity and social marginalisation. A welfare State,
committed to the Constitutional ideals of justice with the
mandate of reducing inequality, promoting social justice and
ensuring a basic standard of living for all, cannot afford to
allow such bereaved families to slide into destitution by the
mechanical operation of procedural formalities.
Significantly, a responsibility has been cast upon the State
under the provisions of Part IV of the Constitution of India,
i.e., Article 39 of the Directive Principles of State Policy to
serve such a welfare State. Thus, the policy of
compassionate appointment is not a concession, largesse or
mercy shown to hapless dependents of a deceased employee,
but a structured response of the State to ensure that the
death of an employee does not mark the beginning of
economic calamity for those left behind. It is from this
vantage point that the competing claims in the present
appeal must be examined.
Page 6 of 13
12. This Court has in numerous occasions elucidated
the underlying humanitarian purpose of compassionate
appointment. The principle was articulated lucidly in
1
Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh , wherein
this Court observed as follows:
“ 8. The rule of appointments to public service is that they
should be on merits and through open invitation. It is the
normal route through which one can get into a public
employment. However, as every rule can have
exceptions, there are a few exceptions to the said rule
also which have been evolved to meet certain
contingencies. As per one such exception relief is
provided to the bereaved family of a deceased employee
by accommodating one of his dependants in a vacancy.
The object is to give succour to the family which
has been suddenly plunged into penury due to the
untimely death of its sole breadwinner. This Court
has observed time and again that the object of providing
such ameliorating relief should not be taken as opening
an alternative mode of recruitment to public
employment. ”
13. In light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the
considered opinion that both the Single and Division Bench
of the High Court rightly directed the competent authority to
consider the case of Respondent no. 1 for compassionate
appointment to a lower post (Class IV), which does not
require CPCT qualification. The undertaking furnished by
Respondent no. 1 to be considered for appointment to a
lower post (Class-IV), identical to the one held by his
1
(1997) 8 SCC 85.
Page 7 of 13
deceased father, does not entail any relaxation of eligibility
norms, nor does it confer upon him any undue or
undeserved advantage.
14. The appellants, relying upon various judgments
2
such as Sadananda Halo v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh , Vijendra
3
Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission , and Manish
4
Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar , among others, contended
that after taking part in the selection process, knowing fully
well the procedure, the Respondent no. 1 cannot challenge
it later. We have perused the judgments relied upon by the
appellants, but these have no relevance to the instant case,
as the material facts in those cases are clearly
distinguishable from the facts of the present matter. The
afore-mentioned cases do not deal with the issue of
compassionate appointments, which is an exception to the
‘rule of equality’ in the matters of public employment, as was
5
held in General Manager, State Bank of India v. Anju Jain
and wholly distinct from the usual process of ‘direct
recruitment’. Had this been a case of ‘direct recruitment’, the
2
(2008) 4 SCC 619
3
(2011) 1 SCC 150
4
(2010) 12 SCC 576
5
(2008) 8 SCC 475
Page 8 of 13
Respondent no. 1 could not, in any circumstances, have
been allowed to be considered for a lower post in lieu of,
failing to satisfy the qualifications of the higher post. This
distinction was also rightly made by the Single Bench of the
th
High Court, in the order dated 24 January 2025. In
addition, the Single Bench had rightly observed that it was
the appellants themselves who had appointed the
Respondent no. 1 to a higher post, namely, Assistant Grade-
III, despite his not possessing the CPCT qualification.
15. Taking into account the humanitarian objective of
the compassionate appointment scheme along with the
surrounding circumstances, where the Respondent no. 1
fulfils all other essential qualifications and has also
rendered prima facie unblemished service for a continuous
period of four years, directing the competent authority to
consider him for appointment to a Class-IV post cannot be
said to transgress any statutory or policy conditions. No
prejudice is caused to the administration or to any candidate
by such a measure. On the contrary, it aligns with the
institutional responsibility to implement welfare policies in
a manner that preserves the beneficial character.
Page 9 of 13
16. Additionally, directing the case of the Respondent
no. 1 to be considered against a Class-IV post does not
violate Clause 13.1 of the Government of Madhya Pradesh
th
Memorandum dated 29 September 2014, which stipulates
that a compassionate appointment once granted shall not be
granted again on any other post. In the present case, the
Respondent no. 1 is not seeking a “second” or fresh
compassionate appointment. Instead, the relief sought is
merely a downward adjustment to a Class IV post, which is
analogous to a reallocation within the same establishment
and framework to preserve the object of the social welfare
scheme. Thus, the appellants’ reliance on Clause 13.1 is
misplaced and reflects an unduly literal interpretation
divorced from context and purpose, especially where
termination would defeat the very purpose for which the
appointment was granted.
17. It can be safely concluded that a narrow or
mechanical construction of the rules governing
compassionate appointment cannot be permitted to override
the welfare-oriented purpose of the scheme. Where a
procedural rigidity ceases to advance the humanitarian
Page 10 of 13
intent of the policy and instead operates as an obstacle to
its effective implementation, such a procedure must be
construed liberally to ensure that justice is not sacrificed at
the altar of technicality. In this context, it is apposite to
recall the sagacious observations of V. R. Krishna Iyer, J. in
6
Sushil Kumar Sen vs. State of Bihar :
“Justice is the goal of jurisprudence – processual, as
much as substantive. While this appeal has to be
allowed, ………………, I must sound a pessimistic note
that it is too puritanical for a legal system to sacrifice
the end product of equity and good conscience at the
altar of processual punctiliousness and it is not too
radical to avert a breakdown of obvious justice by
bending sharply, if need be, the prescriptions of
procedure. The wages of procedural sin should never be
the death of rights.”
18. In this background, it is incumbent upon both the
concerned government departments and the Courts to adopt
a humane and purposive approach, ensuring that the spirit
of the scheme prevails over strict or pedantic readings of its
procedural stipulations. Procedures and technicalities in
welfare schemes are meant to provide structure, not to
become cracks through which the most vulnerable slip.
When interpretation widens those cracks instead of
6
1975 (1) SCC 774
Page 11 of 13
narrowing them, the wall ceases to protect and begins to
endanger.
19. It is also necessary to emphasise that a
compassionate appointment, arising out of the death of an
employee in harness, operates within a distinct framework
carved out to address an exceptional situation. Such
appointments are made against posts earmarked under the
compassionate appointment scheme and do not trench upon
vacancies meant for regular recruitment or for candidates
belonging to other categories. In the absence of any
demonstrable prejudice to similarly situated candidates or
encroachment upon the rights of others, a direction to
consider appointment of the Respondent no. 1 under the
said scheme cannot be said to violate either the mandate of
equality under Article 14 or the guarantee of equality of
opportunity in matters of public employment under Article
16 of the Constitution of India. Compassionate
appointment, being a narrowly tailored welfare measure,
stands on a distinct footing and does not militate against the
principles governing open competition in public employment
as the appellants have sought to make out.
Page 12 of 13
20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit
in this appeal, and the same is dismissed.
th
21. Consequently, we uphold the order dated 7 April,
2025 passed in Writ Appeal No. 894 of 2025 and direct the
appellants to consider the case of the Respondent no. 1 for
compassionate appointment to a Class-IV post,
expeditiously and within six weeks.
22. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
.
……..……………J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
……..…………..….……………….………J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 28, 2025
Page 13 of 13