Does A Recruitment Freeze Apply To Compassionate Appointments? Kerala High Court Answers

The Kerala High Court in a recent judgment held that a ban on regular appointments would not automatically act as a bar for compassionate appointments. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 330]Justice Viju Abraham referred to two decisions rendered by the Bombay High Court that took a similar view and reasoned that the compassionate employment scheme is an exemption to help a family to survive sudden financial destitution. The Court was considering a writ petition seeking a direction for appointing the petitioner as 'Junior Assistant' in the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. per the Compassionate Employment Scheme. “the question to be decided is whether a ban on regular appointments would automatically act as a bar for making any compassionate appointment. I am of the view that it can never act as a bar for appointment under the Compassionate Employment Scheme, since the Compassionate Employment Scheme is treated as an exemption to help a family to survive the sudden financial destitution… the contention raised based on the financial difficulties faced by the Corporation and the ban that has been imposed on the appointment, even through the Public Service Commission, cannot be a reason for not considering the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.,” the Court observed.The petitioner's mother was employed as a worker in the respondent Corporation when she passed away. Thereafter, she submitted an application for Compassionate Employment to include her in the list of Junior Assistants. The request was accepted by the Corporation and she was included in the waiting list in 2012.In 2013, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on daily wages and the appointment came to be renewed periodically. Later, the Corporation was directed by the government to grant appointment through the Scheme without delays. As per a related government order, there was a mandate that the applications for appointment under the Scheme should be submitted to the Administrative Department controlling the concerned PSU. Complying with the same, all applications were submitted by the Corporation to its Agricultural department.The petitioner relied on a RTI reply given by the Corporation to a job aspirant and submitted that there are 5 vacancies of Junior Assistants set apart for appointment under the Scheme but no action was taken. Subsequently, Corporation issued an order denying appointment to the petitioner. Aggrieved, she came before the High Court.The Corporation contended that the petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis on the condition that she would not raise any claim for permanent appointment in any post. Moreover, there was another condition that her afore appointment would not confer any right on her to claim regularization in employment or preference in any appointment.Further, relying on a 2007 government order, it was argued that appointment under the Scheme should be confined to 50% of the total vacancies for direct recruitment whereas presently, 58.18% of the total employees were appointed as per the Scheme.The Corporation also pointed out that it was facing severe financial constraints and all recruitments have been kept in abeyance, even those notified to the PSC. Further, there are other eligible candidates who have been waiting for appointment longer than the petitioner.After hearing the parties, the Court perused the order passed by the Corporation and noticed that there is no rejection of appointment but it was only stated that the petitioner's claim would be considered later.The Court also rejected the contention that the petitioner's appointment on daily wage basis was based on the aforementioned conditions since no such undertaking given by her. Further, it refused to accept the view taken by the Corporation that there was delay in claiming appointment and held that since her entitlement to be including in the waiting list was accepted, her claim cannot be rejected.Noting that the Corporation is considering review of the cadre strength and staff patterns for understanding the actual number of vacancies available, and that the petitioner's application has not been rejected completely, the Court felt that the matter of appointment requires reconsideration by the Corporation after the review is completed.The Court thus directed the Corporation to complete the review exercise within 3 months. After completion of the exercise, if any vacancies are available in accordance with the 2007 GO, the Corporation is to take steps to make appointments under the Scheme according to seniority.Thus, the Court disposed of the plea.Case No: WP(C) No. 14235 of 2024Case Title: Sangeetha K.P. v. The Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. and Anr.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 330Counsel for the petitioner: Reshma E., Anna Sonie, Athira V.M. Atheena AntonyCounsel for the respondents: Abel Tom Benny, D. Prem Kamath, Tom Thomas (Kakkuzhiyil), Aaron Zacharias Benny, Clint Jude Lewis, Bijith B. Bose, Jyothika Krishna, Alan J....

Does A Recruitment Freeze Apply To Compassionate Appointments? Kerala High Court Answers

K. Salma Jennath

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

K. Salma Jennath

Does A Recruitment Freeze Apply To Compassionate Appointments? Kerala High Court Answers

K. Salma Jennath

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

K. Salma Jennath

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers