Gainful employment of a sibling and receipt of family pension preclude claims for compassionate appointment.

The petitioner’s father, a Blue Printer in the Water Resources Department, died in harness on March 5, 2001

The petitioner’s mother was also in government service and superannuated on January 31, 2010

Initially, the petitioner’s brother applied for compassionate appointment in 2010; however, he died in 2024 while his writ petition was pending

Following his brother's death, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on June 28, 2024.

The respondent Chief Engineer rejected the application via letter dated May 23, 2025 (Annexure-P/4), on the grounds that the mother was a retired government servant and another brother of the petitioner was already gainfully employed in government service

The petitioner challenged this rejection, arguing that the mother’s retirement status and his personal dependency on the deceased father necessitated a referral to the District Compassionate Appointment Committee

1. Whether the rejection of an application for compassionate appointment is valid if a sibling of the applicant is already in government service.

2. Whether the fact that the applicant’s mother was a government servant (now retired and receiving a pension) disqualifies the applicant from seeking compassionate appointment.

Full Bench decision in Niraj Kumar Mallik v. State of Bihar Others (2018 (2) PLJR 951), which interpreted G.A.D. Circular No. 15783 dated November 19, 2014, establishing that if any dependent is "gainfully employed"—defined as employment capable of providing sustenance—no other dependent is entitled to compassionate appointment, regardless of whether they live together or separate

Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994 (4) SCC 138), which clarified that compassionate appointment is an exception to Articles 14 and 16 intended solely to relieve immediate financial penury

Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar (1996 (1) SCC 301), which held that the lapse of significant time (e.g., death in 1971, application upon majority years later) mitigates the claim of "immediate hardship"

The Court found that the objective of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to a family in a state of "starvation, destitution, and penury"

Applying the Niraj Kumar Mallik standard, the Court noted that the petitioner’s brother was already in government service, which constitutes gainful employment capable of maintaining the family

The Court rejected the petitioner's argument regarding individual dependency, noting that the authority's concern is the existence of a gainfully employed sibling, not the sibling’s willingness to support the applicant

the fact that the mother was a retired government servant receiving a family pension, coupled with the brother’s employment, demonstrated that the family was not in the state of financial crisis required to bypass regular recruitment rules

The writ petition was dismissed