Compassionate appointment cannot be granted when two sons of the deceased already hold government employment.

Shri Ramdayal Hardiya, husband of Petitioner No. 1 and father of Petitioner No. 2, was serving as a Guard in the respondent department and died in service on 25 May 2018.

The petitioners applied for compassionate appointment of Petitioner No. 2, with Petitioner No. 1’s no-objection and supporting affidavits stating that the deceased’s other sons, Manoj and Vijay, were living separately and had their own families.

The respondents rejected the claim on the ground that two sons of the deceased employee were already in government service, relying on Clause 4.1 of the applicable compassionate-appointment policy.

The petitioners challenged the rejection communication dated 2 August 2018 and sought reconsideration of Petitioner No. 2’s claim.

Whether the rejection of Petitioner No. 2’s claim for compassionate appointment, on the ground that two sons of the deceased employee were already in government service, was contrary to the applicable policy, particularly Clause 4.1.

Whether the separate residence and independent family status of the deceased employee’s other sons entitled Petitioner No. 2 to compassionate appointment.

Whether the lapse of time after the employee’s death defeated the claim for compassionate appointment.

Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of public employment through equal and competitive selection; it is intended to provide immediate financial assistance to a family facing financial crisis after the employee’s death and is not a vested right or a source of regular employment.

The Court applied Clause 4.1 of the applicable policy, under which the existence of two sons of the deceased employee in government service disentitled another claimant from compassionate appointment.

Relying on Steel Authority of India Limited v. Gouri Devi, (2022) 17 SCC 531, read with Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. v. Nirval Singh, (2019) 6 SCC 774, and State of J&K v. Sajad Ahmed Mir, (2006) 5 SCC 766, the Court held that delay in pursuing a compassionate-appointment claim undermines its object of immediate amelioration; where the family survives for a substantial period after the employee’s death, appointment cannot be claimed as of right.

The Court found that the respondents had correctly applied Clause 4.1 because two sons of the deceased were already employed in government service.

The petitioners’ assertion that those sons lived separately and had constituted independent families was unsupported by cogent documentary material; affidavits alone could not establish an entitlement contrary to the policy.

Applying the principle that compassionate appointment must address an immediate financial crisis, the Court further held that the petitioners’ ability to survive for approximately eight years after the deceased’s death weakened the claim based on immediate financial hardship.

Since no arbitrariness, illegality, or policy violation was demonstrated, judicial interference was unwarranted.

The Court also held that separate residence of the other sons and the passage of time did not create any enforceable right to appointment.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, with no direction for reconsideration or grant of appointment.