Compassionate appointment eligibility is governed by the policy in force on the employee’s death.

The petitioner’s father, a Category ‘B’ employee serving as a Senior Assistant Store Keeper with Respondent No. 2, died in service on 28 August 2019.

An application made by the petitioner’s mother for appointment of the petitioner’s elder brother was rejected on 5 October 2019 because the policy then in force limited compassionate appointment to heirs of Category ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees; that rejection was not challenged.

In October 2023, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, relying on a Government Resolution dated 27 September 2021 that extended the benefit to Categories ‘A’ and ‘B’ prospectively from 1 January 2020.

Respondent No. 2 rejected the application, holding that the policy in force at the date of the father’s death governed the claim.

The petitioner challenged that rejection by writ petition.

1. Whether the petitioner’s eligibility for compassionate appointment was governed by the policy in force when his father died, rather than by the later Government Resolution dated 27 September 2021.

2. Whether the petitioner could claim a fresh or independent entitlement to compassionate appointment based on his application having been made in 2023.

Compassionate appointment is an exception to ordinary recruitment, intended to provide immediate financial relief to a family facing hardship after an employee’s death; it is not a vested right exercisable at any time, and delay may defeat its purpose.

Eligibility and the applicable scheme are determined under the policy governing the appointment at the time of the employee’s death. A subsequent policy does not ordinarily create entitlement for a death occurring before that policy takes effect, as held in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ashish Awasthi, (2022) 2 SCC 157, which relied on Indian Bank v. Promila, (2020) 2 SCC 729, and State of M.P. v. Amit Shrivas, (2020) 10 SCC 496.

The Court also referred to State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari, (2025) 5 SCC 712, on the need to determine eligibility under the applicable scheme or rules.

The father died in 2019, when the applicable policy confined compassionate appointment to the legal heirs of Category ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees. The petitioner’s father was in Category ‘B’, and the rejection of the elder brother’s earlier application on that basis had not been challenged.

The petitioner’s later application could not create a separate entitlement or displace the policy applicable at the date of death.

Further, the 2021 Resolution operated prospectively from 1 January 2020 and therefore did not apply to the father’s death in 2019; it could not create a fresh cause of action for the petitioner.

Applying Ashish Awasthi, the Court held that the subsequent policy could not govern the claim.

Finding no merit, the Court dismissed the writ petition, discharged the Rule, and made no order as to costs.