Compassionate appointment requires factual inquiry into dependency regardless of a sibling's existing government employment.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 08.12.2025, which rejected his application for compassionate appointment following the death of his father, a government employee, on 30.11.2021.

The respondent authority denied the claim based on Clause 4.1 of the Policy dated 29.09.2014, citing that the petitioner’s sister had been employed as a Sub-Inspector since 07.04.2017.

The petitioner contended that he was financially dependent on his deceased father and that his sister, being independently employed prior to the father's death, lived separately and did not support the family.

1. Whether the mere employment of one family member (the sister) at the time of the employee's death is a sufficient ground to summarily reject a claim for compassionate appointment without an inquiry into the dependency of other family members.

2. Whether the respondent authority is required to conduct a factual inquiry regarding separate residence and financial independence of the employed sibling before applying the exclusionary clauses of the compassionate appointment policy.

The court primarily interpreted Clause 4.1 of the Compassionate Appointment Policy dated 29.09.2014, which restricts benefits if a family member is already in government service.

It relied on the principles established in Secretary State of M.P. & Anr. v. Mehmood Hussain Mansuri (W.A. No. 729/2013), which held that if an employed sibling resides separately and provides no financial support to the deceased’s dependents, the application for compassionate appointment remains maintainable.

The court further applied the doctrine from Ms. Karuna Bhatt v. State of M.P. & Anr. (W.A. No. 866/2018), mandating a detailed enquiry into the factum of dependency and separate living arrangements.

The court observed that the petitioner’s claim was rejected mechanically based on the sister's employment status without investigating the "factum of dependency".

Referencing Ms. Manisha Chharel v. The Security Printing and Minting Corporation, the court noted that an independently employed sibling residing separately does not necessarily fall within the definition of a "dependent" for the purposes of blocking another member's claim.

The court reasoned that the "moot question" is whether the petitioner was actually dependent on the deceased and whether the employed sister was maintaining the surviving family.

By failing to examine these factual nuances, the respondent's order was found to be in conflict with established precedents that require a fair enquiry into the financial realities of the family.

It remitted the matter to Respondent No. 2 (Commandant, 23rd Battalion SAF) with directions to reconsider the petitioner's claim afresh in light of the cited judicial precedents.

The authority was directed to conduct an inquiry into whether the petitioner was dependent on the deceased and whether the employed sister supported the family, affording the petitioner an opportunity for a hearing and passing a fresh order within 90 days.

The writ petition was allowed to this extent.