Existing government employment of a deceased employee’s family member disqualifies compassionate appointment under the applicable policy.

The petitioner’s father, a Male Health Supervisor at the Community Health Centre, Katgodi, District Korea, died in harness on 22.09.2023.

The petitioner thereafter applied for compassionate appointment, but his claim was rejected by orders dated 05.11.2024 and 20.05.2025, with the appellate order dated 03.02.2025, on the ground that his elder brother was already employed in government service.

The petitioner contended that his elder brother was married, residing separately, and not financially supporting the family, which allegedly continued to suffer financial hardship.

The State defended the rejection on the basis of the applicable compassionate appointment policy, which treated the existence of a government-employed family member as a disqualification.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to compassionate appointment despite his elder brother being employed in government service.

Whether the Court could direct relaxation of the applicable compassionate appointment policy on the ground that the elder brother lived separately and did not financially support the petitioner’s family.

Whether the impugned orders disclosed any jurisdictional error, arbitrariness, or illegality warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Compassionate appointment is an exception to the ordinary rule of public employment and is intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased government employee facing sudden financial crisis.

The competent authority must apply the compassionate appointment policy prevailing at the relevant time, including any prescribed disqualification arising from the presence of a family member already employed in government service.

The Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot direct relaxation of such a policy merely on equitable considerations.

Relying on State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. v. Umesh Thakur, WA No. 236 of 2022, decided on 07.07.2023, and the Full Bench decision referred to therein, the Court held that no inquiry is warranted into whether a government-employed family member is actually providing financial support to another family member seeking compassionate appointment.

The authorities considered the petitioner’s application under the policy applicable at the relevant time and found him ineligible because his elder brother was already in government service.

The Court held that the brother’s separate residence, marital status, or alleged failure to provide financial assistance could not overcome the express policy disqualification.

In view of the rule reiterated in Umesh Thakur, the authorities were not required to undertake an individualized inquiry into the brother’s actual financial contribution to the family.

Since the policy had been correctly applied, and compassionate appointment could not be granted merely on equitable grounds contrary to that policy, no jurisdictional error, arbitrariness, or illegality was established.

It held that the petitioner was ineligible for compassionate appointment under the applicable policy because his elder brother was already employed in government service, irrespective of whether the brother lived separately or financially supported the family.

Finding no ground for interference under Article 226, the Court dismissed the writ petition at the motion stage, without granting any relief.