-
by sayum
14 February 2026 7:49 AM
“Immediate Succour, Not Endless Compassion”, Gujarat High Court delivered a reasoned judgment reiterating that compassionate appointment is an exception to the constitutional mandate of equality under Articles 14 and 16 and cannot be claimed as a vested or heritable right.
Justice Maulik J. Shelat dismissed the petitioner’s plea for compassionate appointment made nearly nine years after his father’s death in harness, holding that such delay itself negates the presumption of immediate financial distress. While refusing appointment and interest on compensation, the Court directed the authorities to re-send a cheque of ₹4,00,000/- to the widow of the deceased employee by 15th March, 2026.
From Compassionate Appointment to Lump-Sum Policy
The petitioner’s father, a government employee, died in harness on 21.07.2008. An application for compassionate appointment was made on 11.09.2008. However, the writ petition came to be filed only on 17.07.2017.
In the intervening period, the State of Gujarat issued a policy dated 05.07.2011 replacing compassionate appointment with lump-sum compensation for dependents of deceased employees. The policy expressly provided that all pending applications would be governed by the new regime.
Pursuant to this policy, the District Education Officer sanctioned ₹4,00,000/- as lump-sum compensation in 2018. The cheque was offered to the widow, Dipikaben Trivedi, but she refused to accept it. Even after the amount was deposited in her account, it was returned.
The petitioner insisted on compassionate appointment and alternatively sought compensation with interest.
Compassionate Appointment as an Exception, Not a Right
The Court extensively relied on the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Canara Bank v. Ajitkumar G.K., AIR 2025 SC 1232, which consolidated decades of jurisprudence on compassionate appointment.
Reaffirming settled principles, the High Court observed:
“The concept of granting compassionate appointment is to give immediate succour to the dependent family members of the deceased employee, who died in harness, whereby he put the family in a precarious financial condition.”
The Court emphasized that such appointment:
Echoing Supreme Court caution, the Court underscored that compassionate appointment cannot become “a matter of course or right, being blissfully oblivious of the laudable object of any policy/scheme in this behalf.”
Delay of Nine Years: Presumption Against Indigence
A decisive factor was the unexplained delay.
“The petitioner has slept over for about 9 years after submitting his application seeking compassionate appointment. This itself shows that family of deceased is not in a precarious condition.”
The Court held that prolonged inaction creates a presumption that the family was not in immediate financial crisis. No material was produced to rebut this presumption.
Thus, the essential precondition of indigence was not satisfied.
Change in Policy: Pending Applications Governed by New Scheme
The Court noted that the 2011 State policy substituted compassionate appointment with lump-sum compensation and expressly covered pending applications.
“It is not in dispute between the parties that when new policy dated 05.07.2011 of the State came into effect, all pending applications of compassionate appointment would be governed by the said policy.”
Relying on settled law that “an employer cannot be compelled to make an appointment on compassionate ground contrary to its policy,” the Court rejected the petitioner’s insistence on appointment under the old regime.
Accordingly, the prayer for compassionate appointment was held “not sustainable at law.”
Refusal of Compensation: Conduct Speaks Louder Than Pleadings
The Court gave considerable weight to the conduct of the petitioner’s family.
The record revealed:
The Court remarked:
“The refusal to accept the cheque offered by DEO concerned by the mother of petitioner is self-sufficient to believe that all throughout, the family was insisting for appointment and never interested to receive compensation.”
Ordinarily, the Court noted, banks do not transfer funds without instructions from the account holder, implying voluntary return of the amount.
This conduct, according to the Court, demonstrated absence of financial destitution.
No Interest on Compensation
The petitioner alternatively sought lump-sum compensation with interest.
The Court declined this relief, observing that there was no deliberate delay attributable to the State. Since the family had refused the cheque and returned the deposited amount, they could not claim interest.
“This is not a case where I should exercise my extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner, directing the respondent to pay lumpsum compensation with the interest.”
Relief: Compensation to Widow, Not Petitioner
Though the petitioner sought compensation in his own name, the Court held that he, being 28 years old at the time of filing the petition, would not be entitled to receive the lump-sum compensation personally.
However, adopting a pragmatic approach and “without being too technical,” the Court directed the authorities to resend a cheque of ₹4,00,000/- in favour of the widow, Dipikaben Trivedi, on or before 15th March, 2026.
The writ petition was dismissed, Rule discharged, and no costs were awarded.
The judgment reinforces three foundational principles governing compassionate appointment:
First, it is a narrow exception carved out to meet immediate financial crisis, not a parallel channel of recruitment.
Second, delay and laches undermine claims of indigence and disentitle relief.
Third, policy changes apply to pending applications, and courts cannot compel appointments contrary to prevailing schemes.
By balancing constitutional discipline with humane direction to reissue compensation to the widow, the Gujarat High Court reaffirmed that compassion in public employment must operate within the framework of law—not beyond it.
Date of Decision: 05 February 2026
