AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned order dated 12.05.2026 filed as Annexure-P/1. By which, application of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that by paragraph-4.1 of the policy, it was found that two brothers of petitioner were in government service.
Learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that brothers are in government service but they are not providing any financial aid to petitioner and other family members. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to get compassionate appointment. Learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that in some cases, orders were passed by the High Court directing the respondents-authorities to go into the question of dependency in financial aid to members concerned by brothers who are in service.
Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner.
Policy of compassionate appointment is placed on record as Annexure-P/6 dated 29.09.2014. The relevant clause for consideration is Clause 4.1 of the policy, which is quoted as under :
अनुकंपा िनयु के िलए अपा�ता िन�निल�खत ��थित म� अनुकंपा िनयु क� पा�ता नह�ं होगी :-
�दवंगत शासक�य सेवक के प#रवार का कोई भी सद�य य�द पूव( से शासक�य सेवा अथवा िनगम, म)डल, प#रष,, आयोग आ�द म� िनयिमत सेवा म� िनयो�जत हो, (आवेदक के प#रवार का कोई सद�य िनयिमत सेवा म� िनयो�जत न होने का शपथ प� /�तुत करना होगा)।
The Apex Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Parkash Chand, reported in (2019) 4 SCC 285 has held as under :
The High Court has observed that the State should consider cases for appointment on compassionate basis by dealing with the applications submitted by sons, or as the case may be, daughters of the deceased government employees, even though, one member of the family is engaged in the service of the Government or an autonomous Board or Corporation. This direction of the judgment of the High Court virtually amounts to a mandamus to the State Government to disregard the terms which have been stipulated in Para 5(c) of its Policy dated 18-1-1990. The Policy contains a limited exception which is available only to a widow of a deceased employee who seeks compassionate appointment even though one of the children of the deceased employee is gainfully employed with the State. The basis for this exception is to deal with cases where the widow is not being supported financially by her children.
In the exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, it was not open to the High Court to rewrite the terms of the Policy. It is well settled that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, but must be governed by the terms on which the State lays down the policy of offering employment assistance to a member of the family of a deceased government employee. [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, SBI v. Kunti Tiwary, Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, SBI v. Somvir Singh, Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, Union of India v. Shashank Goswami, SBI v. Surya Narain Tripathi and Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar.]
11.For the above reasons, we are of the view that the judgment of the High Court is unsustainable. The High Court has virtually rewritten the terms of the Policy and has issued a direction to the State to consider applications which do not fulfil the terms of the Policy. This is impermissible.
If the prayer made by the senior advocate appearing for the petitioner is accepted, then Court will be adding additional condition to Clause-4.1 of the Policy. Court cannot add anything to the policy of compassionate appointment. Policy lays down that if family members are in government service, then compassionate appointment cannot be granted to other family members. If Court directs an inquiry to find out whether such a member is contributing to income of the family or not, same will be adding additional condition to Clause-4.1 of the Policy. The Court cannot legislate on the policy matters. No modification, substitution or alternation of any provision of the scheme can be made by Court.
Similarly, in case of State Bank of India and another Vs. Rajkumar reported in 2010 (11) SCC 661, it was held that compassionate appointment can be claimed only in accordance with scheme in force and there is no right de-hors the scheme. In case of N.C. Santhosh Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2020 (7) SCC 617, it was held that norms prevailing on date of consideration of application is to be applied for grant of compassionate appointment. Compassionate appointment is exception to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and can be granted only within the frame work of policy.
As per Clause 4, if some of the family members of deceased-government employee are in regular employment of the State Government/ Municipal Corporation or Municipal Council etc, then application on behalf of other family members will not be considered for grant of compassionate appointment. Regular job of any family member will be a disqualification for another member filing application for grant of compassionate appointment. Counsel for petitioner argued that though brothers are in service but they are not contributing to income of the family or supporting other family members. Therefore, an inquiry should be conducted in this regard. Aforesaid request of senior counsel cannot be granted by this Court. Apex Court has repeatedly stated that no departure from policy of compassionate appointment is permissible. Court will not make any addition or subtraction in policy of compassionate appointment or devise any method of ordering enquiry to supersede the clauses of compassionate appointment.
Considering law and policy as applicable, it is found that petitioner is disqualified for getting compassionate appointment since his brother is in government job.
Resultantly, no case is made out for interference. Writ petition filed by petitioner is dismissed.