AP High Court Flags Excessive Compassionate Appointments, Says Educated Youth Left Waiting 'In Silence'

Noting that the so-called 'exception' to equality in public employment had become the new normal, the Justice Nyapathy Vijay observed,

“... compassionate appointments since 02.06.2014 @ nearly 2000 appointments per year (from 2014-2025), appears to be virtually at-par or in excess of direct recruitment through public notification by the State. In other words, 20,801 times, the fundamental right of equality in employment under Article 16 of the Constitution was violated by the stakeholders, in the name of “exception”.

The Single-Judge remarked that there are “countless educated youth waiting in silence for years with a hope to get public employment and their hope is being nipped by indiscriminate compassionate appointments, on the perceived financial distress of the family of the deceased Government employee. The unemployed educated youth, whose families have never seen public employment also have many distressing and heart breaking stories to tell, for seeking public employment, but they do not have any platform to express unlike the persons claiming compassionate appointments. Excessive and exaggerated compassion shown to the family of the deceased by all the stakeholders is virtually showing no compassion to the educated youth hoping for employment. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased, there are millions of other families, which are equally, if not more destitute.”

The Court went on to lament that the absence of a mechanism to check the competency of individuals appointed on compassionate grounds and the staggering number of compassionate appointments is indicative of the “gap between reality and the stakeholders' ability to exploit the procedure on exaggerated sympathy.”

Background

The Court was particularly dealing with a writ petition where the petitioner sought compassionate appointment after the death of her father— a library assistant who passed away in service in 2022 due to ill-health. Her mother had predeceased him, and though married— she claimed that she and her husband were unemployed and dependent on the income of her father.

Opposing the petition, the State claimed that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, but only as a measure to relieve financial adversity caused by death of the employee. It further argued that although there is no bar against considering a married daughter, such claim is subject to proof that she continued to be dependent even after marriage.

In this regard, the Court observed that compassionate appointments must rest strictly on two essential foundations: dependency and financial indigency. It lamented that over time, the category of dependents had expanded— allowing distant relatives and extended family members such as brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces, and so on, to seek appointments. However, as per the Court, strict parameters must be delineated and only those— whom the deceased employee was bound to maintain- should ordinarily avail the benefit of such appointment. The Single-Judge cautioned that,

“If the obligation under law to maintain and attend to the welfare is not a pre-condition, then all and sundry can claim compassionate appointment claiming that they are dependent. The benevolence of the deceased Government employee in maintaining and attending to the needs of persons other than the “immediate family” would not confer upon them any right to seek for compassionate appointments.”

The Court further suggested that where the financial arrangements made to the family are insufficient, the State ought to come up with an offer of ex-gratia amount to mitigate the immediate financial requirements instead of compassionate appointments. Such an amount was suggested to not remain fixed, but should be premised on a formula dependent on the salary and the number of years of remaining service of the deceased employee.

“Such an offer would ameliorate the immediate requirement of finances for the deceased family and the foundational requirement of providing compassionate appointment i.e., to overcome the loss of breadwinner would stand redressed,”, the Court emphasised.

However, if the dependents still think that they are entitled to employment to mitigate peculiar family difficulties, the eligible dependent could be considered temporarily on contractual or out-sourced basis. The Court added,

“It is to be noted that thousands of persons across the State are being recruited on contractual, temporary and also on outsourcing basis and a Corporation (APCOS) was incorporated for the said purpose. The eligible dependents cannot claim any better right than the persons appointed under outsourcing basis for regular employment. The regular employment on compassionate grounds should be an exception in exceptional cases and this is left to the discretion of the State Government. The above observations may look harsh, but in matters of public employment, the welfare of the public should be paramount. The maxim “Salus Populi Est Suprema lex” is apt in this context, that is the welfare of the people is the supreme law. The greater good of the greater number and the benefit and happiness of all are the objects and the authorities of the State are to act in furtherance of the same.”

Disposing of the petition, the State was directed to re-draft guidelines for compassionate appointment, defining dependent's financial capacity, ex-gratia compensation in lieu of such appointment and employment on outsourcing/contractual basis, within 3 months, and thereafter consider the case of the petitioner.

Case Number: WRIT PETITION No.6472 of 2025

Case Title: Gogutattu Sujana v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Click Here To Read/Download Order