Compassionate appointment cannot be denied solely because deemed regularisation followed the employee’s death.

Siddaraju, husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, worked for Mysuru City Corporation from 7 July 1986.

After his request for regularisation was rejected, he challenged that decision; he died during the pendency of the proceedings on 12 October 2020.

His legal representatives later obtained an order declaring his service deemed regularised after ten years of service.

They sought compassionate appointment for petitioner No. 3, but the authorities rejected the request because Siddaraju had not been regularised when he died.

After an earlier writ petition seeking consideration of their representations became infructuous, the petitioners filed this petition challenging the rejection orders and seeking consideration of their claim.

Whether the authorities could reject the compassionate appointment claim on the ground that Siddaraju was not regularised on the date of his death, despite the order treating his service as deemed regularised.

Whether the Court should direct the respondents to consider the petitioners’ compassionate appointment claim in accordance with the applicable scheme.

Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and is subject to eligibility under the applicable scheme.

However, where an employee has pursued adjudication of a claim to regularisation and the service is subsequently treated as regularised by a court order, the authorities cannot disregard that order solely because regularisation had not been formally effected by the date of death; the employee is to be treated as deemed regularised in accordance with the order.

The earlier regularisation proceedings relied on the Supreme Court’s directions in Uma Devi and the Government Order dated 25 May 2006.

No specific compassionate appointment scheme or provision is identified in this judgment.

The Court noted that the order in W.P. No. 905/2022 treated Siddaraju’s service as deemed regularised, following the regularisation relief granted to similarly situated workers.

The impugned rejection nevertheless relied on his not being a regular employee when he died.

Since that reasoning disregarded the effect of the deemed-regularisation order, the rejection could not stand.

The Court did not itself grant appointment; it required the authorities to reconsider the claim, subject to the petitioners’ eligibility under the applicable scheme.

The rejection orders dated 14 May 2025 and 11 June 2025 were quashed, and the respondents were directed to pass appropriate orders considering the petitioners’ compassionate appointment claim, in light of the Court’s observations, within eight weeks of receiving the order.