Compassionate appointment is governed by prevailing policy and does not constitute a vested right to regular recruitment.

The petitioner’s father, a Senior Lineman at the respondent company, died in harness on 27.07.2021.

The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 08.10.2021, providing his Class 12th and ITI qualifications.

He was subsequently offered the post of Line Attendant on a contractual basis, a position he accepted and joined on 29.09.2022.

The petitioner later filed this writ petition seeking a modification of his appointment from contractual to regular, arguing that the 2018 policy in force at the time of his father’s death entitled him to a permanent post and that the 2022 amendment providing for contractual appointments should not apply retrospectively.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a regular/permanent appointment on compassionate grounds as a matter of right.

2. Whether the policy prevailing at the time of the employee's death or the policy prevailing at the time of consideration of the application governs the appointment.

3. Whether the judgment in *Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi v. State of M.P.* mandates regular appointment regardless of specific policy amendments.

The court applied the principle that compassionate appointment is an exception to Article 16 of the Constitution, intended solely to help a family tide over sudden financial crises, rather than a vested right or a regular mode of recruitment.

It relied on *Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana*, which established that such appointments must be made on the lowest posts to relieve destitution.

*State of U.P. v. Mohd. Rehan Khan*, which held that appointees are bound by the specific terms and service conditions of the scheme.

Per *Tinku v. State of Haryana*, the court emphasized that appointments must strictly adhere to the "four corners" of the prevailing policy.

The court reasoned that compassionate appointment is not a service condition of the deceased but a humanitarian gesture governed strictly by the employer's policy.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on the *Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi* case, noting that the previous judgment was based on a specific policy that did not contemplate contractual roles, whereas the current amended policy specifically provides for contractual appointment for Linemen.

Crucially, the Court held that the claim must be adjudicated based on the policy prevailing at the time of *consideration* of the application, not the date of death.

Since the respondent provided an appointment in accordance with the amended 2022 policy, and the petitioner had already accepted and joined the post, there was no illegality in the contractual nature of the offer.

The Court upheld the contractual appointment and dismissed the writ petition, granting no relief to the petitioner.