A gainfully employed sibling disentitles other dependents from compassionate appointment, irrespective of separate residence.

The appellant, Rajeev Kumar, sought compassionate appointment after the death of his father, a government servant.

His initial claim was rejected in a meeting held on 20 December 2017.

In CWJC No. 4156 of 2019, the High Court directed the authorities to reconsider his claim in light of the Full Bench judgment concerning compassionate appointment, clarifying that the earlier rejection would not prevent fresh consideration.

Upon reconsideration, the authorities rejected the claim by order dated 7 September 2022.

The rejection was based principally on the fact that the appellant’s elder brother, another dependent of the deceased employee, was employed in Andhra Bank and was therefore treated as “gainfully employed”.

The appellant’s subsequent writ petition, CWJC No. 5018 of 2023, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 3 May 2023 by applying the Full Bench decision in Niraj Kumar Mallick v. State of Bihar, 2018 (2) PLJR 951.

The present intra-court appeal challenged that dismissal.

The Division Bench also noted that the appeal was filed with a delay of 771 days.

Whether the appellant was entitled to compassionate appointment when another dependent sibling of the deceased government servant was gainfully employed in Andhra Bank?

Whether the authorities and the learned Single Judge correctly applied the Government policy and the Full Bench decision in Niraj Kumar Mallick to reject the appellant’s claim?

Whether the appeal was liable to be dismissed on account of the delay of 771 days?

The Court applied the settled principle that compassionate appointment is not a source of regular recruitment but a measure intended to relieve the family of a deceased government servant from immediate financial distress.

Under the applicable Government policy, where any dependent of the deceased government servant is “gainfully employed,” another dependent is not entitled to compassionate appointment; the rule applies irrespective of whether the employed dependent lives with or separately from the other family members.

The Court relied principally on the Full Bench decision in Niraj Kumar Mallick v. State of Bihar, 2018 (2) PLJR 951, especially paragraphs 46 and 47, which held that “gainfully employed” must be assessed objectively and that the authority need not determine whether the employed sibling is actually willing to maintain the other dependents.

The Court also referred to the principles in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Asha Ramchandra Ambedkar, namely that compassionate appointment must be governed by the applicable policy and that courts cannot disregard the law merely on sympathetic grounds.

The Court found that there was no dispute that the appellant’s elder brother, who was also a dependent of the deceased employee, was employed in Andhra Bank.

Applying the objective test laid down in Niraj Kumar Mallick, such employment constituted gainful employment for the purposes of the compassionate-appointment policy.

The policy did not permit the appellant to claim appointment merely because the employed sibling lived separately or was allegedly unwilling to support the family; those considerations were outside the scope of the statutory or policy inquiry.

Since the authorities had reconsidered the claim pursuant to the earlier writ order and had rejected it on a ground consistent with the governing policy, the learned Single Judge was justified in declining interference.

The Division Bench therefore found no error in the impugned order and additionally noted that the appeal suffered from a delay of 771 days.

The rejection of the claim was consistent with the Government policy and the Full Bench ruling in Niraj Kumar Mallick.

The appeal was dismissed both on merits and on the ground of delay of 771 days.