Receipt of terminal benefits and family pension cannot justify the denial of compassionate appointment.

The petitioner’s father, Late Shri Narayan Singh Sengar, died in harness on 01.01.2010 while serving as a District Legal Aid Officer.

The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, declaring a lack of assets and significant family liabilities.

The respondent authority rejected the application via an order dated 18.07.2012 (Annexure P-1), stating there was "no sufficient basis" for the appointment.

The respondents justified the rejection by asserting that the family received terminal benefits totaling Rs. 17,00,248/- and that the widow’s monthly pension (approx. Rs. 26,583/-) exceeded the deceased employee's last drawn salary.

The petitioner challenged this as a non-speaking and arbitrary order.

1. Whether the receipt of terminal benefits and family pension constitutes a valid legal ground to deny a claim for compassionate appointment.

2. Whether the respondent's rejection order was arbitrary and lacked the necessary enquiry into the family's actual financial distress.

Compassionate appointment is an exception to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, intended to prevent financial destitution.

Family pension or terminal benefits are not substitutes for employment assistance.

The scheme of compassionate appointment is over and above statutory retiral benefits, and such benefits cannot be used to mitigate the evaluation of "penury".

The intent of the scheme is to provide immediate relief from distress.

The court reasoned that the respondents failed to conduct a proper enquiry into the family’s actual financial stability, liabilities, or capacity to sustain themselves, instead relying mechanically on the quantum of retiral dues.

It highlighted that the word "compassionate" implies a sympathetic duty to assist families in crisis.

The court observed that the family’s economic replenishment through a son’s employment cannot be equated to terminal benefits, as the latter are earned entitlements of service rather than a welfare substitute.

The court criticized the respondents for the 14-year delay in litigation, noting that the petitioner had since crossed the age of 45; it held that the respondents cannot take advantage of the lapse of time caused by their own arbitrary and illegal initial rejection.

The Court quashed the order dated 18.07.2012 (Annexure P-1) and directed the respondents to grant the petitioner a suitable post commensurate with his qualifications within 90 days, including all consequential benefits.

The petition was allowed.