Mr. Rahul Rohtagi, Advocate v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Judgment

1. The petitioners are the son and wife of Late Sh. Ram Kishan, who was an employee of respondent No.2 - Centre for Railway Information Systems [“CRIS”]. Sh. Ram Kishan died on 03.05.2020, while he was still in service. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners seek a direction upon CRIS to appoint petitioner No. 1 on compassionate grounds, in place of his deceased father, as requested through a representation made by petitioner No. 2 on 18.08.2020. 2.

I have heard Mr. Rahul Rohtagi, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Chandan Kumar, learned counsel for CRIS. 3. Two recent judgments of the Supreme Court have summarised the principles which must inform the consideration of applications for Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:13.07.2025 16:51:55 W.P.(C) 4566/2024 Page 1 of 9 compassionate appointment: (a) The following extracts of the judgment of a three-judge Bench, in Tinku v. State of Haryana & Ors.1, are relevant for the present case: “12. As regards the compassionate appointment being sought to be claimed as a vested right for appointment, suffice it to say that the said right is not a condition of service of an employee who dies in harness, which must be given to the dependent without any kind of scrutiny or undertaking a process of selection. It is an appointment which is given on proper and strict scrutiny of the various parameters as laid down with an intention to help a family out of a sudden pecuniary financial destitution to help it get out of the emerging urgent situation where the sole bread earner has expired, leaving them helpless and maybe penniless. Compassionate appointment is, therefore, provided to bail out a family of the deceased employee facing extreme financial difficulty and but for the employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis. This shall in any case be subject to the claimant fulfilling the requirements as laid down in the policy, instructions, or rules for such a compassionate appointment.

13. It must be clearly stated here that in a case where there is no policy, instruction, or rule providing for an appointment on compassionate grounds, such an appointment cannot be granted.”2 (b) In Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K.3, the Court has distilled its earlier precedents into 26 propositions, which include the following: a) Appointment on compassionate ground, which is offered on humanitarian grounds, is an exception to the rule of equality in the matter of public employment.4 b) Compassionate appointment cannot be made in the absence of rules or instructions.5 xxxx xxxx xxxx e) Since rules relating to compassionate appointment permit a sidedoor entry, the same have to be given strict interpretation.6 f) Compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right and the