The Supreme Court has clarified that compassionate appointments, provided to support families facing financial crises after the death of a public servant, are not an automatic or vested right. Instead, the Court emphasized that these appointments must undergo careful scrutiny to ensure they meet stringent requirements.
In a case brought forward by a man seeking a compassionate appointment following the death of his father, a police constable, the Court, led by Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih, upheld a policy by the Haryana government imposing a three-year limit on such applications. The petitioner’s father died in 1997 when he was a child; he applied in 2008, only to have his application rejected due to the 1999 policy’s time restriction.
Justice Masih noted that compassionate appointments are not part of an employee’s service benefits but are provided to assist families experiencing sudden financial hardship due to the loss of the primary income earner. The Court’s stance reiterates that compassionate appointments are exceptions to general employment rules, designed solely to deliver urgent relief to families in crisis and not to serve as a blanket right for dependents of deceased employees.
The Court upheld the three-year application timeframe, asserting that the restriction ensures appointments are reserved for those in immediate need, reflecting the original intent of these policies. While the petitioner’s request for appointment was denied, the Court granted his mother the opportunity to apply for a one-time ex-gratia payment.
The judgment reinforces the importance of compassionate appointments as an exceptional provision rather than an entitlement, underscoring the need for strict criteria to ensure fairness and urgency in assistance.
