Director Must Decide Compassionate Appointment Claim in Light of Joint Director’s Recommendation

The petitioner’s father, a Peon with the Municipal Council, Khairagarh, died in harness on 25 July 2017.

The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 21 August 2017.

On 12 January 2023, the Joint Director, Urban Administration and Development, informed the Director that no Class III or IV post was available at Khairagarh, but an Assistant Revenue Inspector post was vacant at the Municipal Council, Amleshwar, and recommended the petitioner’s appointment to that post.

The petitioner sought a direction for appointment; during the hearing, he sought liberty to make a representation to the Director, and the State agreed that it would be considered.

Whether the petitioner should receive a direction for compassionate appointment to the vacant Assistant Revenue Inspector post at Amleshwar or another suitable post.

Whether the petitioner could instead be directed to make a representation for the Director’s consideration of the Joint Director’s recommendation.

The Court cited no statute, precedent, or substantive legal test governing compassionate appointment.

It disposed of the petition on the basis of the parties’ submissions, directing the competent authority to consider the petitioner’s representation in light of the Joint Director’s recommendation.

The Court did not decide whether the petitioner was legally entitled to compassionate appointment or whether the vacant post could be filled by him.

The Joint Director’s recommendation and the State’s submission that the representation would be considered provided a basis for referring the matter to the Director for examination and decision.

The Court therefore granted procedural relief rather than ordering an appointment.

The Director was directed to consider and decide it in terms of the Joint Director’s recommendation dated 12 January 2023 (Annexure P-6) within a further 60 days.