A Disclosed Compassionate Appointment Cannot Be Cancelled Years Later Absent Fraud or Suppression.

The petitioner’s grandmother, a government employee, died in harness in 2015. After his father’s death, the petitioner claimed that he, his widowed mother and siblings had lived with and depended on his grandmother.

Following consideration by a Screening Committee, he was appointed as a Dawasaj on compassionate grounds in August 2016 and completed probation.

In 2018, the authorities issued a show-cause notice questioning his eligibility as a dependent under the State policy dated 29.09.2014. The Divisional Ayush Officer cancelled his appointment on 18.02.2019; the petitioner challenged that order under Article 226, and the High Court stayed its operation on 08.03.2019.

The petitioner remained in service during the proceedings. The State maintained that a grandson of the deceased employee was not an eligible dependent under the policy, while the intervener, the deceased employee’s daughter, alleged suppression and referred to a pending succession dispute.

Whether the respondents were justified in cancelling the petitioner’s compassionate appointment after his case had been considered by the competent authorities and he had served for several years.

Whether the petitioner’s continued service under interim protection, in the absence of a finding of fraud or deliberate suppression, warranted relief against cancellation in the particular circumstances of the case.

Compassionate appointment is an exception to the ordinary recruitment process and is governed by the applicable scheme; it is not a right that can be claimed contrary to the scheme’s eligibility conditions.

The policy dated 29.09.2014 governs eligibility and provides for a competent authority to decide between family members where they do not consent to one another’s selection.

In Md. Zamil Ahmed v. State of Bihar, (2016) 12 SCC 342, the Supreme Court disapproved termination after a long period where the material facts were known to the authorities and the employee had not committed fraud or suppressed facts.

In Union of India v. K.P. Tiwari, (2003) 9 SCC 129, the Supreme Court declined to disturb an employee’s established service after several years where doing so would uproot the employee from his livelihood.

The High Court also relied on its decision in Surendra Singh v. State of M.P., W.P. No. 13788 of 2021, decided 02.09.2025, concerning cancellation of compassionate appointment after a long period where relevant facts had been known and there was no suppression.

The Court found that the petitioner had disclosed his relationship with the deceased employee and that the authorities had considered the relevant circumstances before the Screening Committee recommended his appointment. The cancellation was based on a later view of his eligibility, not on a finding that he had obtained the appointment through fraud, false documents or deliberate suppression.

Although nomination and dependency could not override an express policy condition, they were relevant to the authorities’ assessment; the Court did not hold that a grandson is generally eligible for compassionate appointment.

The petitioner had completed probation, promptly challenged cancellation, and continued working for more than seven years under interim protection. Applying Md. Zamil Ahmed and K.P. Tiwari, the Court concluded that, on these particular facts, cancelling his appointment at that stage would be unjustified.

It directed the respondents to permit him to continue as a Dawasaj and treated him as continuously in service from his initial appointment dated 29.08.2016; the period served under the interim order was to count as continuous service for service purposes.

The competent authority was directed to consider and release consequential benefits, including monetary benefits, as admissible in accordance with law.

The Court confined its relief to the peculiar facts of the case and made no order as to costs.