Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a right if another family member is in gainful government service.

The petitioner’s father, a Stenographer in the office of the Advocate General, Bihar, died in harness on March 8, 2015.

The petitioner applied for a compassionate appointment between 2018 and 2020. The respondent authorities rejected the claim via letters dated September 18, 2019, January 23, 2020, and November 29, 2021.

The rejection was grounded on the fact that the petitioner’s elder brother was already gainfully employed in a government service at the Circle Office, Phulwarisharif.

The petitioner challenged these orders, contending that the elder brother lived separately and did not support the deceased's wife and unmarried daughter.

1. Whether the claim for compassionate appointment can be sustained when one of the sons of the deceased employee is already in government service.

2. Whether compassionate appointment can be granted after a significant lapse of time from the date of the employee's death.

The court applied the settled principles governing compassionate appointment, emphasizing that it is an exception to the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and not a vested right or a form of reservation.

It relied on the Division Bench judgment in Rajeev Kumar Manjhi v. The State of Bihar Ors. (2018), which held that if a family survives for several years post-death and a member is employed, the "acute distress" required for such appointment is not established.

The court also cited General Manager, SBI v. Anju Jain (2008) regarding delay and laches, and State of Jammu Kashmir v. Sajad Ahmad Mir (2006), which prohibits compassionate appointment after long periods.

Additionally, it noted that legal remedies for maintenance exist under Section 125 of the CrPC, the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

The Court observed that the petitioner’s father died in 2015, and the family had survived for several years before the final rejection of the claim.

It rejected the petitioner's argument that the elder brother’s separate living status warranted the appointment, noting that the brother was in government service and thus a dependent of the family was gainfully employed.

The Court reasoned that compassionate appointment is intended to meet sudden financial crises, not to serve as a perpetual right to employment.

It further held that if the earning son fails to support the mother, the appropriate remedy lies in statutory maintenance laws rather than a claim for compassionate appointment.

The lapse of nearly a decade since the death further weakened the "exceptional circumstances" required for such an appointment.

It concluded that since one son was already in government service and a significant amount of time had passed since the death of the employee, the petitioner was not entitled to the relief.

The writ petition was dismissed.