Compassionate Appointment, An Exception To Regular Recruitment, Can Be Denied If Dependents Received Sufficient Benefits : Delhi HC

Background Facts

The petitioner's father was in the service of National Bal Bhawan [NBB] for 27 years, and died on 21.05.2021 at the age of 57. The cause of death on the death certificate was Bilateral Severe Covid Pneumonia. The family of the deceased consisted of his wife and two sons, of whom the petitioner was the younger. The petitioner's mother made a representation dated 20.07.2021 to the respondent, seeking employment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds. She was requested to submit a proforma in terms of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment. The proforma showed that the petitioner's mother declared only two dependants of the deceased, being herself and the petitioner. The form made no mention of the petitioner's brother. Further the assets left by the deceased were enumerated at ₹49,64,600, including Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, General Provident Fund balance, and leave encashment. In addition, it was mentioned that the family receives a family pension of ₹36,416 per month.

The petitioner again made detailed representation on 24.01.2024 for compassionate appointment, which was disposed of by the order dated 08.08.2024. By way of the order, the petitioner's application was rejected on the ground that the family did not fulfil the basic objective of the scheme. Having regard to monetary resources, and the number of members in the family, being the wife and two major sons of the deceased, the application was found not to fall within the requirements for compassionate appointment.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking compassionate appointment in the service of NBB, where his late father served as a Junior Sports Instructor (Judo).

The petitioner relied upon the Scheme issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India [DoPT] on 16.01.2013. The objective of the Scheme is “The object of the Scheme is to grant appointment on compassionate grounds to a dependent family member of a Government servant dying in harness or who is retired on medical grounds, thereby leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, to relieve the family of the Government servant concerned from financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency.” It was further argued by the petitioner that upon instructions, the petitioner's brother had returned to India a few months ago and was unemployed.

On the other hand it was contended by the respondent that the family had informed that the petitioner's brother was working independently in the US, lived separately and was not dependent upon family and this was the reason the petitioner had not shown his brother dependant family member for compassionate appointment.

Findings of the Court

It was noted by the court that the petitioner's mother, in the proforma filed by her, only showed herself and the petitioner as the dependant members of the deceased's family. But later argued that there were three dependants on the same resources. Further the court did not find any arbitrariness or unreasonableness on the part of the respondent as it was observed that an amount of approximately ₹50 lakhs was available to the family, in addition to monthly income of over ₹40,000. Therefore, the family did not suffer from financial hardships.

The Clause 18 (c) of the instructions dated 16.01.2013, was relied upon by the court which states that an application for compassionate appointment should not be rejected merely on the ground that the family of the Government servant has received the benefits under the various welfare schemes. While considering a request for appointment on compassionate ground a balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family has to be made taking into account its assets and liabilities.

It was held by the court that Clause 18 (c) only states that compassionate appointment ought not to be denied merely on the ground that the family has received benefits under welfare schemes. A balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family is mandated, taking into account its assets and liabilities. This expressly includes the benefits received under the various welfare schemes mentioned above, along with other relevant factors. Therefore, court rejected the contention of the petitioner that the amounts received by the family upon the demise of the petitioner's father, should not be taken into account.

It was held by the court that the need for compassionate appointment arises only in a limited class of circumstances where a government servant dies in harness, and the appointment is required to relieve his family of consequent penury and destitution. The court did not find any arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the view taken by the respondents, therefore upheld it.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Name : Yashvardhan v. Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 493

Case No. : W.P.(C) 2372/2025

Counsel for the Petitioner : Rohit Samhotra, Advocate.

Counsel for the Respondents : S. Rajappa, R. Gowrishankar, G. Dhivyasri, Advocates