Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Private Windfall but a Public Trust Held for Entire Family: Rajasthan High Court Orders ₹20,000 Monthly Deduction from Widow’s Salary for Abandoned Father-in-Law

“Respondent No.4 cannot be permitted to enjoy the fruits of compassionate employment while neglecting those whose welfare formed the basis of such employment.” - In a compelling judgment highlighting the humanitarian foundation of compassionate appointments, the Rajasthan High Court ruled that a widow appointed on compassionate grounds cannot disown her solemn promise to support her deceased husband's aged father, particularly after deriving employment solely based on that undertaking. Justice Farjand Ali, delivering the verdict, directed the respondent-department to deduct ₹20,000 every month from her salary and deposit the same into the petitioner’s bank account, emphasising that compassionate appointment is not a personal entitlement but a fiduciary trust.

The petitioner, Bhagwan Singh, an aged and dependent father, approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, pleading that his daughter-in-law, who was appointed in his place after the untimely death of his son, had abandoned him within eighteen days of her husband's demise, remarried, and failed to provide any financial support despite her sworn affidavit committing to do so.

The Court found merit in the petition, stating, “This case is a poignant example of how the very benevolent object underlying the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment Rules has been rendered nugatory by the subsequent conduct of the beneficiary.”

“Appointment Was Made Not on Merit, But on Compassion—The Widow Held That Job in Trust for the Family”

Justice Ali underscored that the appointment of respondent No.4 was never a matter of individual merit or competitive selection, but an indulgence granted by the State to prevent destitution of the deceased employee’s family. The Court noted that compassionate appointment is a social welfare measure, and added:

“She did not undergo any written examination or interview as is ordinarily prescribed for appointments in public service... Her engagement was, in substance, an act of grace—a compassionate indulgence of the State.”

The petitioner, being the original nominee of the department for compassionate employment, had voluntarily relinquished his right in favour of his daughter-in-law, believing she would carry out the moral duty to care for the surviving dependents. However, the Court noted with concern that “Respondent No.4 left her matrimonial home within 18 days of her husband's death and has since remarried, leaving the petitioner in a state of financial and emotional neglect.”

“Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel Applies with Full Force in Welfare Schemes Based on Affidavits and Undertakings”

The Court placed decisive weight on the affidavit dated 19.10.2015 filed by respondent No.4, wherein she had categorically undertaken to reside with and maintain her in-laws, and also not to remarry. Even as the Court refrained from commenting on her personal liberty to remarry, it made it clear that her failure to honour the foundational promises of her appointment had grave legal and moral consequences:

“To allow her to resile from her solemn promise would amount to permitting a fraud upon the compassionate scheme itself.”

Referring to the affidavit as the “material and foundational condition” of her appointment, the Court held that she cannot now disown her obligation merely because circumstances have changed. The principle of promissory estoppel, the Court held, squarely applied, even though the compassionate appointment was a welfare measure:

“Having availed herself of the benefit upon a specific assurance, she cannot now disown the corresponding obligation.”

“Compassionate Appointment Is a Trust, Not a Trophy—Neglect of In-Laws Defeats Its Very Purpose”

Justice Farjand Ali elaborated that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to support the family unit left behind by the deceased employee. The benefit is extended not to an individual in isolation but to a representative of the whole family:

“The expression ‘dependent’ under the Rules of 1996 is not a mere statutory label but embodies a moral and social responsibility towards the surviving family members.”

“When one member of such a family is extended the benefit of compassionate appointment, the appointment is not conferred in an individual capacity but as a representative of the entire family.”

The Court also denounced the apathy of the administrative authorities, who failed to act on clear reports showing that the petitioner was left without any support. Highlighting that “authorities failed to appreciate that the initial offer of compassionate appointment was extended in favour of the petitioner himself”, the Court stated that permitting such conduct “would make a mockery of the very ethos of compassionate employment.”

“Remarriage Cannot Cancel the Obligation Voluntarily Undertaken Towards Aged Dependents of the Deceased”

While affirming the right of respondent No.4 to choose her own path after widowhood, the Court clarified that remarriage does not erase promises voluntarily made in order to secure public benefits. Her affidavit had bound her to the duty of care, and her subsequent abandonment of that duty was a breach of moral and legal trust.

The Court stated:

“This Court refrains from delving into the personal choices of respondent No.4, but it cannot countenance her breach of the solemn assurance to maintain her in-laws.”

₹20,000 to Be Deducted Monthly for Petitioner’s Maintenance

In conclusion, the Court passed the following operative direction:

“This Court deems it just and proper to direct that from 01.11.2025 onwards, the respondent-department shall ensure deduction of ₹20,000/- per month from the salary of respondent No.4, to be credited directly into the bank account of the petitioner towards his maintenance.”

The payment shall continue “during the lifetime of the petitioner or until further orders of the competent authority.”

Justice Rooted in Trust, Fairness, and the Spirit of Welfare Law

With this judgment, the Rajasthan High Court has laid down an important principle that appointments granted on the basis of affidavits and undertakings in welfare schemes cannot be reduced to personal privileges, and those entrusted with such appointments hold them subject to continuing obligations.

The Court summed up the sentiment powerfully:

“The widow cannot be permitted to enjoy the fruits of compassionate employment while neglecting those whose welfare formed the basis of such employment.”

This decision will likely serve as guidance for future cases where compassionate appointments are misused, and will reaffirm that state benevolence must not be allowed to turn into personal benefit at the expense of justice, equity, and compassion.

Date of Decision: 29 October 2025