Compassionate appointment may be denied where the family has sufficient resources and a gainfully employed member.

The petitioner’s father, who was employed as a Corrector in the Secretariat Press, Gulzarbagh, died in harness on 1 March 2017.

The petitioner sought appointment on compassionate grounds, but the District Compassionate Committee rejected his application on 28 April 2018.

The petitioner challenged that rejection in CWJC No. 13551 of 2024.

By order dated 9 September 2024, the High Court directed consideration of whether the family was facing starvation, destitution, or penury.

On reconsideration, the District Compassionate Committee again rejected the claim on 24 July 2025.

It relied on the family’s ownership of approximately 135 decimals of land, the deceased employee’s wife receiving family pension of ₹17,019 per month, and the younger son’s employment with the Sashastra Seema Bal.

The petitioner challenged the fresh rejection in the present writ petition.

Whether the District Compassionate Committee properly reconsidered and decided the petitioner’s claim in accordance with the High Court’s earlier direction to examine whether the family was in starvation, destitution, or penury.

Whether the rejection of compassionate appointment was legally sustainable in view of the family’s landholdings, family pension, and the gainful employment of another family member.

Whether the authorities were required to apply the norms prevailing on the date of consideration, including the subsequent definition of “gainfully employed” relied upon by the petitioner.

The Court applied the principles governing compassionate appointment, namely that such appointment is an exception to the ordinary rule of recruitment and is intended to provide immediate relief to a family facing financial crisis because of the employee’s death in harness.

The Court relied principally on the Full Bench decision in Niraj Kumar Mallick v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2018 (2) PLJR 951, requiring assessment of the family’s actual financial condition, including its assets and sources of income, to determine whether it was in starvation, destitution, or penury.

The petitioner also relied on N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2020) 7 SCC 617, concerning application of the rules or policy prevailing on the date of consideration, and on the General Administration Department’s letter dated 15 November 2024 defining “gainfully employed”; however, the Court ultimately upheld the rejection on the basis of the financial circumstances recorded by the Committee.

The Court found that the Committee had reconsidered the petitioner’s claim pursuant to the earlier order and had passed a reasoned decision based on the Circle Officer’s report and other relevant financial circumstances.

The family possessed substantial land—90 decimals in the name of the deceased employee and 45 decimals in the name of his wife—and the deceased employee’s wife received a monthly family pension of ₹17,019.

In addition, the petitioner’s younger brother was employed with the Sashastra Seema Bal.

Although the petitioner referred to family liabilities, loans, the number of family members, and the distribution of land, he did not deny or effectively contest the recorded assets and sources of income by affidavit.

Applying the principles in Niraj Kumar Mallick, the Court held that these circumstances demonstrated reasonable means of maintaining the family and supported the Committee’s conclusion that the family was not in a condition of starvation, destitution, or penury.

Consequently, no legal error was found in the rejection order.

The Court found no illegality or error in the impugned order and dismissed the writ application.

No direction for compassionate appointment or consequential benefits was granted.