A gainfully employed sibling bars compassionate appointment; separate residence or non-support is irrelevant.

The petitioner’s elder brother, Late Pradeep Kumar Mandal, was employed as an Anusevak (Class-IV employee) under the Block Development Officer, Kiratpur, and died in harness on 25 May 2012. He was unmarried and had nominated the petitioner in his service records.

The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 16 July 2013. During verification, it emerged that another brother of the petitioner was already employed in government service. Although the Block Development Officer reported that the employed brother lived separately and did not support the family, the District Compassionate Appointment Committee rejected the petitioner’s claim on 25 June 2016, relying on General Administration Department Memo No. 15783 dated 19 November 2014. The petitioner challenged the rejection under Article 226 of the Constitution and sought appointment to a Class III or Class IV post.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to compassionate appointment despite the fact that his brother, a dependent of the deceased employee, was already employed in government service?

Whether the employed brother’s separate residence and alleged failure to financially support the family could override the State policy denying compassionate appointment where another dependent is gainfully employed?

The Court applied the principle that compassionate appointment is an exception to the constitutional rule of equality of opportunity in public employment under Articles 14 and 16, intended only to provide immediate financial assistance to a deceased employee’s family and not to confer a hereditary right or a regular source of recruitment.

Relying principally on the Full Bench decision in Niraj Kumar Mallick v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2018 (2) PLJR 951, the Court held that the existence of a gainfully employed sibling must be assessed objectively, by examining the nature of the employment and the resources generated, and not subjectively by determining whether that sibling is actually willing to support or maintain the other dependants.

The Court also considered Ranjeet Paswan v. State of Bihar & Ors., C.W.J.C. No. 4040 of 2024, decided on 31 March 2026, which requires an objective inquiry into the nature and income of the employed sibling rather than a summary rejection.

General Administration Department Memo No. 15783 dated 19 November 2014 was treated as barring compassionate appointment where a dependent of the deceased employee is gainfully employed.

The Court found that the petitioner’s brother was admittedly employed in government service, and that the competent authority had undertaken an inquiry into his employment, as reflected in the relevant correspondence and report.

Although Ranjeet Paswan requires objective assessment, the Court clarified that the inquiry is limited to the nature of employment and whether it generates sufficient resources for sustenance; it does not extend to examining the employed sibling’s willingness to provide financial support or the fact of separate residence.

A regular government appointment was held to constitute gainful employment ordinarily yielding sufficient income for family sustenance under the applicable State policy.

Since the petitioner relied only on the brother’s separate residence and alleged lack of support, and produced no objective evidence showing that the brother’s income was so meagre that the family remained in a state of destitution, the Committee’s decision was found consistent with the policy and the Full Bench ruling.

The rejection of the petitioner’s application by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee on 25 June 2016 was found neither illegal nor procedurally infirm, as it conformed to Memo No. 15783 dated 19 November 2014 and the law declared in Niraj Kumar Mallick. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.