A dependent’s gainful employment bars compassionate appointment to other dependents, regardless of separate residence.

The petitioner’s father, a Revenue Karamchari posted at Mescor, Nawada, died in harness on 25 December 2018.

The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 9 June 2020.

The District Compassionate Appointment Committee, in its meeting dated 16 January 2021, recommended his appointment to a Class III post; however, appointment was not made because no sanctioned vacant post was available.

The petitioner’s case was reconsidered by the Committee on 12 December 2024 and rejected on the ground that his full brother was gainfully employed in the Indian Railways, in terms of the General Administration Department’s letter dated 25 October 2024.

The petitioner challenged the rejection and sought a direction for compassionate appointment, contending that his brother had been living separately and that he alone was supporting their widowed mother.

Whether the District Compassionate Appointment Committee could reconsider and reject the petitioner’s claim after having earlier recommended him for appointment to a Class III post.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to compassionate appointment despite the undisputed fact that his full brother was gainfully employed in the Indian Railways and allegedly lived separately from the petitioner and other family members.

Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s application pursuant to the General Administration Department’s guidelines dated 25 October 2024 was legally sustainable.

Compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal recruitment process, intended only to enable the family of a deceased Government servant to overcome the sudden financial crisis caused by the death of the breadwinner, and not to provide an alternative source of employment.

Relying on Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 138, as referred to in Niraj Kumar Mallick v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2018 (2) PLJR 951 (FB), the Court held that where a dependent of the deceased Government servant is gainfully employed, compassionate appointment is unavailable to another dependent, irrespective of whether the employed dependent resides jointly or separately from the other family members.

The authority is not required to determine whether the employed dependent is willing to support the remaining dependants.

The Court also relied on the General Administration Department’s letter dated 25 October 2024 concerning the eligibility of dependants where another family member is gainfully employed.

The Court found that the petitioner’s brother’s employment in the Indian Railways was undisputed.

Under the binding principle stated in Niraj Kumar Mallick, the brother’s separate residence and the petitioner’s claim that he was caring for their mother did not preserve the petitioner’s eligibility for compassionate appointment.

The earlier recommendation dated 16 January 2021 did not create an indefeasible right to appointment, particularly since the appointment had not been made owing to the non-availability of a sanctioned vacant post.

The subsequent reconsideration and rejection, based on the applicable guidelines and the brother’s gainful employment, was therefore not shown to be arbitrary or unlawful.

The fact that the petitioner’s full brother was gainfully employed remained decisive, regardless of their separate residence or the petitioner’s alleged responsibility for maintaining their mother.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, and no direction for appointment or other relief was granted.