A sibling’s employment bars compassionate appointment only if it can sustain the deceased employee’s dependants.

The appellant challenged the rejection of his application for compassionate appointment. The screening committee rejected the application because one of the deceased employee’s sons was already employed; the Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s writ petition on that basis

In appeal, the appellant submitted that his elder brother lived elsewhere and did not support him

Whether the appellant was entitled to have his application for compassionate appointment reconsidered because his employed elder brother lived elsewhere and did not support him

Whether the elder sibling’s employment precluded compassionate appointment without an assessment of the nature of that employment and the resources it generated

The Court applied the Full Bench decision in Niraj Kumar Mallick & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr., 2018 (2) PLJR 951.

Under the principle stated in paragraph 48 of that decision, the competent authority must objectively assess the nature of an employed sibling’s work and the resources it generates. Compassionate appointment may be refused where the sibling is gainfully employed and has the capacity to maintain the other dependants; where the employment does not generate sufficient resources to provide their sustenance, the other dependant’s application must be considered

The Court rejected the appellant’s submission that his brother’s residence elsewhere meant he did not support him.

Applying the Full Bench’s test, it noted that the appellant had not claimed that his brother was unable to provide support because of meagre income. The Court therefore found no basis to disturb the rejection of the application or the Single Judge’s order

Any pending applications were also disposed of