Compassionate Appointment Cannot Become Alternate Mode Of Public Employment: Delhi High Court

Justice Shail Jain made the observation while allowing a plea filed by BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. challenging an Industrial Tribunal award directing the company to consider compassionate appointment for the son of a deceased employee.

The Court quashed the Tribunal's 2014 award, holding that the claim for compassionate appointment had been raised after an unexplained delay of nearly six-and-a-half years and that the family was not in immediate financial distress as contemplated under the applicable scheme.

The deceased employee, a lineman with the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board whose services later stood transferred to BSES, died due to electrocution during the course of employment in August 2003. His family received over Rs. 7 lakh towards terminal and statutory benefits, apart from family pension.

The employee's son applied for compassionate appointment only in February 2010. The company rejected the request, after which the dispute reached the Industrial Tribunal, which ruled in favour of the claimant and directed the employer to consider his case on merits.

Setting aside the award, the High Court observed that compassionate appointment is merely an exception to the constitutional mandate of equality in public employment under Articles 14 and 16 and cannot be claimed as a vested right.

Reliance was placed on Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K. (2025), where the Supreme Court reiterated that compassionate appointment is intended only to provide immediate financial assistance to families facing sudden financial distress due to the death of an employee in harness.

The Court found that the family had managed to sustain itself for several years after the employee's death and noted that the claimant himself admitted during cross-examination that he had undertaken gainful employment before seeking compassionate appointment.

In this backdrop the Court observed,

“Compassionate appointment is not intended to operate as a source of financial advancement or long-term economic rehabilitation for the family of a deceased employee. Its object is strictly confined to providing immediate succour to a family suddenly rendered vulnerable by the untimely demise of its breadwinner, and it cannot be permitted to assume the character of an alternate mode of public employment.”

It added that considerations of sympathy cannot override the constitutional mandate governing public employment or the express stipulations contained in the applicable Scheme.

As such, it termed the Tribunal's award “patently illegal” and set it aside.

Appearance: Mr. Sandeep Prabhakar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vikas Mehta, Advs. for Petitioner; Mr. Pankaj Tripathi, Mr. Gaurav Antil, Advs. for Respondent

Case title: M/S BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar

Case no.: W.P.(C) 3034/2014

Click here to read order