### Compassionate appointment is impermissible if other family members are gainfully employed or receiving pension.

The petitioner’s father, a Blue Printer in the Water Resources Department, died in harness on 05.03.2001

The petitioner’s mother was also a government servant who retired on 31.01.2010

Initially, the petitioner’s brother applied for compassionate appointment in 2010, but he died in 2024 while his writ petition was pending

Following the brother's death, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 28.06.2024

The Chief Engineer rejected the application via letter dated 23.05.2025 (Annexure-P/4) on the grounds that the mother was in government service at the time of the father's death and one son (the petitioner's other brother) is currently in government service

The petitioner challenged this rejection, arguing that his mother is now retired and he remains dependent

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment was valid given that other family members (mother and brother) were/are gainfully employed in government service.

2. Whether the lapse of over 25 years since the death of the government employee precludes the grant of compassionate appointment.

The court primarily applied the principles settled by the Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Niraj Kumar Mallik v. State of Bihar & Others [2018 (2) PLJR 951], which interpreted GAD Circular No. 15783 dated 19.11.2014, stipulating that if any dependent is "gainfully employed" (regardless of whether they live separately), other dependents are ineligible for compassionate appointment

The court also relied on the Supreme Court precedents of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 138], which defines the object of the scheme as providing immediate relief to tide over financial crisis

and Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar [(1996) 1 SCC 301], which held that compassionate appointment cannot be sought years after the death as it is not a secondary mode of recruitment

The court reasoned that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of merit-based public recruitment under Articles 14 and 16, intended solely to prevent destitution

Following the Niraj Kumar Mallik precedent, the court found that since one of the petitioner's brothers is gainfully employed in government service and the mother receives a family pension, the family cannot be deemed to be in a state of "penury" or "starvation"

The court noted that the "gainful employment" of a sibling must be assessed objectively; if the employment provides sufficient resources for sustenance, the claim for compassionate appointment fails

Furthermore, the court observed that the father died in 2001, and seeking appointment decades later contradicts the fundamental purpose of the scheme, which is to address "unexpected immediate hardship"

The court found no infirmity in the Chief Engineer’s order dated 23.05.2025. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed