Compassionate Appointment Not Right; Applicant's Marital Status, Family Income & Dependency Relevant: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a concession, to be granted strictly in accordance with policy and only to mitigate immediate financial distress caused by the death of a government employee in harness.Dismissing a writ petition, the Court upheld the rejection of a married daughter's claim for compassionate appointment, holding that the authority was justified in examining factors such as her marital status, husband's income, existence of other earning siblings, and lack of continuous dependency.Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "The legal principles governing compassionate appointments are well-settled and have been consistently reiterated by the Supreme Court. It is trite that compassionate appointment is not a right, but a concession granted to the family of a deceased employee to tide over sudden financial crisis arising out of the death of the sole breadwinner. The object is to provide immediate relief, not to provide employment as a matter of course or opening a backdoor entry into employment.The petitioner's father, employed as a Work Charge Bulldozer Operator with the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL), died in harness on 26 March 2001. Nearly two decades later, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment under the policy dated 27.10.2022.Her claim was initially rejected on the ground that married daughters were not eligible under the earlier 2002 policy. Following directions of the High Court in an earlier writ petition, the claim was reconsidered but again rejected vide order dated 06.10.2025.The authority cited multiple reasons for rejection, including that the petitioner being a married daughter, and her husband being in government service with substantial income,The existence of four siblings, some of whom were employed, The petitioner residing at a different address from her widowed mother, casting doubt on dependency and financial distress.Aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the rejection order, seeking compassionate appointment on a Class-III post.The petitioner argued that the rejection was arbitrary, non-speaking and based on irrelevant considerations, asserting that the number of siblings and residential address have no nexus with eligibility.Compassionate appointment is meant to provide relief to the family, not to assess individual living arrangements mechanically.The respondents contended that the Compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal recruitment process, not a right. After the policy amendment dated 29.01.2024, married daughters are included as dependents, but eligibility still depends on actual financial distress.A holistic assessment, as required by Government communication dated 31.01.2025, was undertaken. Relevant factors like the petitioner's husband's income, siblings' financial position, and lack of shared household were rightly considered, added the respondent authority.The Court reiterated settled Supreme Court jurisprudence on compassionate appointments, relying on decisions including:Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi (2009),SAIL v. Madhusudan Das (2008),Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Dharmendra Sharma (2007),Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K. (2025),State Bank of India v. Somvir Singh (2007).The Court emphasized that Compassionate appointment is meant to address immediate financial crisis, not provide employment as a matter of course.It added that Authorities are entitled to consider overall financial condition, including income of other family members, terminal benefits, and alternative means of sustenance.Where penury or immediate indigence is absent, the very basis of compassionate appointment disappears.Importantly, the Court noted that the petitioner's father passed away in 2001, and the claim was pursued after more than two decades, by which time the element of immediacy had long ceased to exist.In the present case, a perusal of the speaking order dated 06.10.2025 reveals that the authority has taken into account multiple relevant aspects:- The petitioner is married and her husband is in government service with a disclosed annual income.- The petitioner has four siblings, some of whom are employed.- The petitioner resides at a different address from her mother, raising a legitimate doubt regarding continuous dependency and shared financial hardship.- The policy itself, as clarified by subsequent communications, requires each case to be examined on its individual merits, considering social and economic factors.Justice Brar opined that, The contention that the number of siblings or address difference is irrelevant is misconceived. "These factors are directly related to determining whether the family is in such penury that compassionate appointment is warranted. The authority is entitled to satisfy itself that the claimant is genuinely dependent and that the family has no other sufficient means of support," opined the judge.The Court found no illegality or...

Compassionate Appointment Not Right; Applicant's Marital Status, Family Income & Dependency Relevant: Punjab & Haryana High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Compassionate Appointment Not Right; Applicant's Marital Status, Family Income & Dependency Relevant: Punjab & Haryana High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers