Orissa High Court Dismisses 27-Year-Old Compassionate Appointment Claim, Rules Delay Defeats Purpose of Rehabilitation Scheme

"Compassionate Appointment is Not a Matter of Inheritance but a Measure to Prevent Destitution" - Orissa High Court, in a judgment dated March 3, 2025, dismissed a 27-year-old claim for compassionate appointment, ruling that the delay in seeking relief negates the fundamental purpose of the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. Justice G. Satapathy, while rejecting the writ petition filed by Subasini Kar and another, held that compassionate appointments are not a vested right and should not be treated as a "matter of inheritance."

The case arose from a petition filed by Subasini Kar and her son, who sought compassionate appointment under the Orissa Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990, following the death of Pramoda Kumar Bahinipati—a Light Motor Vehicle driver employed with the Orissa Mining Corporation (OMC). Bahinipati passed away on December 18, 1997, due to an accident while on duty.

The petitioners originally applied for appointment in 1998, but the claim was rejected by OMC on multiple grounds, including delay in application, lack of eligibility under the definition of ‘family,’ and the absence of financial distress. After years of litigation, including multiple writ petitions and orders from the High Court directing reconsideration, the claim was ultimately rejected again in 2014. The present petition challenged that rejection.

The Court emphasized that the very purpose of compassionate appointments is to provide immediate relief to bereaved families facing financial distress. A delay of nearly three decades defeats this purpose. Citing previous Supreme Court rulings, the Court reaffirmed that compassionate appointments are not a source of employment but a measure to prevent destitution.

"Compassionate appointment is not a vested right conferred on the family members of a deceased employee. Rather, it is a social measure to prevent the family from destitution and vagrancy." The Court observed that the petitioner had managed to litigate for over 27 years, which in itself indicated the absence of extreme financial distress.

The Court also relied on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ashish Awasthi (2022) 2 SCC 157 and State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari (2023 LiveLaw SC 175), which held that compassionate appointments must be granted strictly based on the rules in force at the time of the employee's death and not based on later amendments.

The Court noted that at the time of the deceased employee's death in 1997, the petitioner's brother did not fall within the definition of ‘family’ under the applicable rules. Though an amendment in 1999 included siblings, the Court ruled that subsequent amendments cannot retroactively confer eligibility. The Court further noted that the petitioner’s father was employed with OMC until his retirement in 2003 and had a stable income, which also disqualified the petitioner under the financial distress criterion.

Dismissing the petition, the Court held that allowing such delayed claims would convert compassionate appointments into an inheritance mechanism, contrary to constitutional principles. The Court concluded:

"Compassionate appointment is meant to alleviate immediate hardship and not to be treated as a hereditary right. A claim for appointment after nearly three decades is unjustified and legally untenable."

Date of Decision: March 3, 2025