Employment of a family member in government service precludes compassionate appointment for other dependents.

The petitioners are the widow (Petitioner No. 1) and son (Petitioner No. 2) of Late Nagendra Ram, a deceased employee of the Bihar Special Armed Police.

Petitioner No. 2 applied for a compassionate appointment following his father's death.

His application was repeatedly rejected by the respondent authorities (Commandant BSAP-8 and A.I.G. Welfare) on the grounds that his elder brother, Manish Kumar, was already employed in government service.

The petitioners previously filed C.W.J.C. No. 9847 of 2023, where the Court directed the respondents to reconsider the case in light of the Full Bench decision in Niraj Kumar Mallick v. State of Bihar.

Upon reconsideration, the A.I.G. of Police (Welfare) issued a fresh rejection order dated 30.10.2024, noting that the elder son earned an annual income of ₹6,31,468 (approximately ₹52,622 per month) during the financial year 2023-2024.

The petitioners challenged this rejection, claiming the elder son does not support the family.

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment was legally sustainable given that a family member was already in government service.

2. Whether the financial condition of the family, including the receipt of a family pension, disentitled the petitioner from seeking an appointment under the compassionate scheme.

The court relied on the principles established by the Full Bench in Niraj Kumar Mallick v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2018) regarding the criteria for compassionate appointments.

doctrine from Bank of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Manoj Kumar Deharia & Anr., which clarifies that compassionate appointment is not a vested or hereditary right but an exception to the General Rule of public appointment, strictly governed by the applicable schemes and policies at the time of the request.

The Court examined the financial status of the deceased's family to determine if an "immediate financial crisis" existed, which is the prerequisite for compassionate appointment.

It noted that the elder son of Petitioner No. 1 is gainfully employed in government service with a monthly income of ₹52,622.

the Court observed that Petitioner No. 1 receives a family pension and that her daughter is already married.

While the petitioners argued that the elder son does not provide financial support, the Court held that the grant of such appointments must strictly follow the state’s policy and rules rather than personal circumstances.

The Court concluded that the respondent authorities had correctly applied the Full Bench guidelines in Niraj Kumar Mallick, finding that the family’s existing income sources (government employment of one son and family pension) removed the element of indigence required for such an appointment.

Compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate relief to a bereaved family, and since one member is already in government service with a substantial income, the prayer for Petitioner No. 2's appointment was rightly rejected.

The writ petition was dismissed.