Rajasthan High Court Directs Compassionate Appointment 21 Years After Employee's Death, Says Financial Crisis Has Not Ended
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the authorities to consider an appellant for compassionate appointment, 21 years after his father's death, holding that the mere fact that a family has survived for years cannot be treated as proof that its financial crisis has ended.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Kumar and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma observed that while considering a claim for compassionate appointment, the family's financial means must be assessed in the context of its ability to maintain a dignified existence under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court also held that the appellant, who was a minor when his father died, had applied within a reasonable period after attaining majority. Therefore, the claim could not be rejected on hyper-technical grounds, including the fact that other eligible family members had not earlier applied.
“…there was no undue delay by the Appellant in making an application for compassionate appointment immediately upon becoming eligible for the same and the same was made within a 'reasonable period' and mere existence of other eligible family members, as per the rule of strict interpretation, cannot serve as a disqualification in absence of such a requirement in the scheme.”
For context, the appellant's father was working as a technician with the respondent-department who passed away when the appellant was just 2.5 years old, leaving behind his wife, 5 daughters and the appellant. Resultantly, the entire financial burden came upon his grandparents.
The family's sole source of income remained the pension received post the demise of his father and the grandfather incurred huge debt due to marriage of 3 of the appellant's sisters. Hence, it was the case of the appellant that they were in an indigent state without any means of livelihood.
In this background, on attaining majority, he applied for compassionate appointment, which was denied by the department on the ground that the incident was 15 years old, and since then the family was able to survive with the pension and gratuity. Further, the respondent submitted that no application was made by either of the sisters of the appellant after their father's demise.
After hearing the contention, the Court opined that the scheme of compassionate appointment, being a beneficial legislation, had to be strictly interpreted with its objective in mind.
The Court referred to certain relevant parts of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment, issued by the Union Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, and held that the phrase “manage somehow” in paragraph 10 (a) had to be construed to mean a dignified existence as per Article 21 of the Constitution. In this light, the Court held,
“From a perusal of the family income of the Appellant vis-à-vis the amount required in the current era for a dignified existence, it is apparent that the same is insufficient for the family to maintain such a dignified existence… Furthermore, the mere fact that the family has survived till date cannot invite the assumption that the family did not face indigent circumstances.”
A further reference was made to the Supreme Court case of Canara Bank v Ajithkunar G.K. in which it was held that payment of terminal benefits could not be treated as substitute for providing employment assistance.
In relation to the respondent's argument of other family members not applying earlier, the Court observed that such hyper-technical reasons could not be a ground to deny compassionate appointment, especially where the indigent condition of the family was apparent and the scheme did not mandate application by the first eligible person in the family.
Hence, while considering that the appellant had applied within a reasonable period of attaining majority, and the fact that their family crisis were still not over, the appeal was allowed.
Accordingly, the respondent was directed to consider the appellant for grant of compassionate appointment.
Title: Umesh Singh v the Director, CSIR- Central Electronics Engineering Research Institution, Pilani, Jhunjhunu, (Rajasthan)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 355