Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court

"As per the settled proposition of law laid down by this Court for appointment on compassionate ground, the policy prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee only is required to be considered and not the subsequent policy." Bombay High Court, in a judgment dated 29 September 2026, held that a claim for compassionate appointment must be adjudicated strictly according to the policy in force at the time of the deceased employee’s demise, rejecting the plea that subsequent government resolutions could retrospectively confer eligibility.

A division bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad observed that "compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time," and that subsequent policy changes cannot be invoked to create a fresh cause of action.

The petitioner sought compassionate appointment following the death of his father, a Category ‘B’ employee, in August 2019. An initial application by the petitioner’s elder brother was rejected in 2019 because the prevailing 2017 policy excluded Category ‘B’ employees from compassionate appointment. In 2023, the petitioner filed a fresh application, relying on a 2021 Government Resolution that extended benefits to Category ‘B’ employees. The state rejected this application, citing the prospective nature of the 2021 resolution.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the eligibility of an applicant for compassionate appointment is to be determined by the policy prevalent at the date of the employee’s death or by a subsequent, more beneficial policy enacted after the death. The court was further tasked with determining if a later government resolution can create a fresh cause of action for a claim that was already time-barred or ineligible under previous norms.

Rule of Prospective Application

The court emphasized that compassionate appointment serves as an exception to the rule of equal opportunity in public employment. Its sole object is to provide immediate financial relief to the bereaved family. When this immediacy is lost through the passage of time or legal ineligibility, the rationale for the appointment effectively diminishes. The bench clarified that the 2021 Resolution relied upon by the petitioner was not only prospective in its operation—commencing from 1 January 2020—but was also specifically designed in the context of pandemic-related disruptions.

"The subsequent Resolution dated 27th September, 2021 cannot be treated as creating a right or a fresh cause of action in Petitioner’s favour. The said Resolution has no application as admittedly the Petitioner’s father passed away prior to the date from which the aforesaid Resolution became operative."

In its analysis, the bench relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Ashish Awasthi, which solidified the doctrine that subsequent policy amendments cannot revive claims that were invalid under the regime existing at the date of death. The High Court reiterated that the scheme prevalent on the date of death is the exclusive yardstick for determining eligibility.

"The principle laid down in the above decision, squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Here too, the deceased employee died at a time when the applicable policy did not extend compassionate appointment to Category ‘B’ employees."

The court concluded that because the petitioner’s father died during the tenure of the 2017 policy, which did not cover the deceased’s category, the subsequent policy could not be applied retroactively. Finding no merit in the petition, the court dismissed the Writ Petition and discharged the Rule, effectively reinforcing the finality of the initial rejection of the claim in 2019.

Date of Decision: 29 September 2026