The Supreme Court of India while considering issue of compassionate appointment has reiterated that compassionate appointment is a narrow exception to the regular recruitment process and is intended only to relieve the immediate financial distress of a deceased employee’s family. The Bench comprising Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale JJ. allowed the appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, set aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 9 April 2024, and dismissed the writ petition, holding that a claim made nearly fifteen years after the employee’s death was hopelessly barred by time and legally unsustainable.

The case arose from the death in harness of a Sub-Inspector of Police on 25 November 1995. At the time of his death, the respondent-son was about seven years old. To mitigate the immediate hardship, the State sanctioned an extraordinary pension in favour of the widow in 1997. Despite this, no application for compassionate appointment was made by the widow within the prescribed period of five years under the applicable scheme.

The respondent attained majority in 2006 and had, by then, acquired the requisite educational qualification to be considered for compassionate appointment, at least to a lower post such as that of Constable. However, he did not apply at that stage, stating later that he intended to complete his graduation. It was only in March 2010 nearly fifteen years after his father’s death that he applied for compassionate appointment, specifically seeking the post of Sub-Inspector. 

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court reiterated that compassionate appointment is not a source of employment but a limited departure from the general rules of recruitment framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. The object of such schemes is to address sudden financial crisis caused by the death of a government employee, and not to provide employment to dependants at a time of their choosing. Relying on State of J&K v. Sajad Ahmed Mir, the Court held that if a family has managed to survive despite the death of the employee, the very foundation of compassionate appointment stands diluted.

Further, relying on State Bank of India v. Somvir Singh, the Court reiterated that the competent authority is entitled to assess the financial condition of the family and deny compassionate appointment if no penury or immediate distress is found. The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reassessing the family’s financial position and substituting its own view based on sympathy. Judicial review, the Court held, does not permit such re-appreciation of facts.

Supreme Court as such allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and dismissed the writ petition.