-
by sayum
27 June 2026 4:17 PM
Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Vested Right, Must Address Immediate Financial Hardship: Orissa HC. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Justice Savitri Ratho, emphasized that compassionate appointment is intended to address immediate financial hardship following the death of a government employee and cannot be claimed as an inheritance or vested right after prolonged delays.
The respondent, Geetamani Soren @ Majhi, applied for compassionate appointment on July 6, 2013, seven years after the death of her father, a government employee, in September 2006. At the time of her father’s death, the respondent was a minor. The claim for compassionate appointment was based on her mother’s alleged physical and mental incapacity to work, supported by a medical certificate dated June 28, 2013, stating the widow was unfit for employment.
The respondent’s application was rejected by the government authorities on January 18, 2017, citing that the widow (respondent’s mother) was eligible to apply for compassionate appointment but had not done so. The respondent challenged this rejection in a writ petition before a Single Judge, who set aside the rejection and directed the government to process her application.
Under Rule 9(7) of the Orissa Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990, minors at the time of the employee’s death must apply for compassionate appointment within three years of attaining majority. The respondent filed her application seven years after her father’s death and more than a year after attaining majority.
The court observed: "The scheme of compassionate appointment exists to address the immediate financial hardship caused by the death of a government servant. A prolonged delay (seven years in application, 17 years in total) defeats the purpose of the scheme."
Citing the Supreme Court's decision in State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari (2023 SCC Online SC 219), the bench noted that such delays dilute the immediacy required under compassionate appointment schemes, especially when the family has been able to sustain itself for years.
The widow of the deceased employee, who was eligible for compassionate appointment under Rule 9(3), did not apply for the job and instead relied on her daughter to seek appointment after attaining majority. The court stressed that the incapacity of the widow must be contemporaneous with the death of the government employee, not based on medical evidence presented years later.
The court held: "Physically incapacity of the respondent’s mother was required to be determined as on the date of death of the Government servant, not on the date when the respondent filed the application for appointment on compassionate ground."
The court reiterated that compassionate appointment is not a vested right or an inheritance and is intended only to alleviate financial distress caused by the sudden death of a government employee. By filing the application long after the death, the respondent undermined the scheme’s purpose.
The judgment noted: "Granting compassionate appointment in such a case would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession, which is contrary to the Constitution."
The Single Judge relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa (2022 SCC Online SC 684), where compassionate appointment was granted based on the widow’s unfitness. However, the Division Bench distinguished the present case, noting that in Malaya Nanda Sethy, the son applied immediately after the death of the employee, whereas in the present case, the respondent applied after a delay of seven years.
The court clarified: "The decision of the Supreme Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy is clearly distinguishable on facts... The respondent has not been able to establish a case that, on the date of death of the deceased employee, her mother was unfit for doing any job."
The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Single Judge's order and dismissing the respondent's writ petition. The bench emphasized that entertaining a claim for compassionate appointment 17 years after the death of the employee would undermine the purpose of the scheme.
The court concluded: "The issuance of a direction for considering the respondent’s case for appointment on compassionate basis, more than 17 years after the death of the Government servant, defeats the very purpose of the Scheme of appointment on compassionate ground."
Date of Decision: January 13, 2025
