Compassionate appointment cannot be rejected solely for a sibling’s employment without assessing actual family financial support.

The petitioner’s father, who was employed as a Waterman (Jalwahak) at BMP-5, died in harness on 24 June 2016.

The petitioner, who had passed Matriculation, Intermediate and Graduation, applied for compassionate appointment to the post of Clerk.

Her application was rejected by order dated 5 December 2016 on the ground that her brother was already employed in government service.

The petitioner asserted that her brother lived separately and did not maintain her mother or the family. Her mother and brother filed affidavits expressing no objection to her appointment, and her mother stated that the petitioner was the sole person taking care of her.

The petitioner challenged the rejection and relied on the Full Bench decision in Niraj Kumar Mallick v. State of Bihar, reported in (2018) 2 PLJR 951.

Whether the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment could be rejected solely because her brother was employed in government service, without examining the financial support actually available to the deceased employee’s dependants.

Whether the rejection order dated 5 December 2016 was liable to be set aside and the matter remitted to the District Compassionate Appointment Committee for a fresh determination after assessing the brother’s income and the family pension received by the petitioner’s mother.

The Court applied the principles governing compassionate appointment and relied principally on the Full Bench decision in Niraj Kumar Mallick v. State of Bihar, (2018) 2 PLJR 951.

That decision requires the competent authority, where a sibling of the deceased employee is employed, to assess the income generated from that employment and whether the available resources are sufficient for the subsistence and maintenance of the other dependants.

The Full Bench further observed that the expression “gainfully employed” must be assessed objectively, and that the authority should not ordinarily determine the issue by merely relying on allegations regarding the sibling’s willingness or unwillingness to maintain other dependants.

The Court also reiterated that compassionate appointment must be considered in accordance with the applicable scheme and governing law, and that sympathetic considerations cannot justify disregarding legal requirements.

The Court found that the petitioner had specifically pleaded that her employed brother lived separately and did not support her mother or the family, and that this assertion was supported by the mother’s affidavit.

In the Court’s view, the rejection of the application solely on the basis of the brother’s employment did not reflect the enquiry contemplated by Niraj Kumar Mallick.

The authority was required to assess the brother’s actual income, the family pension received by the deceased employee’s widow, and whether the combined resources were available and sufficient to maintain the dependants.

Since that factual and financial assessment had not been undertaken, the rejection order could not be sustained.

The matter was remitted to the District Compassionate Appointment Committee for fresh consideration.

The Committee was directed to enquire into the income generated from the petitioner’s brother’s employment and the family pension received by the petitioner’s mother, determine whether those resources were actually available and sufficient for the dependants’ maintenance, and pass a fresh, reasoned order in accordance with law and Niraj Kumar Mallick.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.