Abhishek Munda v. The State of Jharkhand, through Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Geeta Kumary, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Vipul Poddar, Advocate Mr. Ayush Deb, AC to GP-VI 02/ 20th January, 2026 ------

2. Heard the parties. The claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the application was filed beyond five years.

3. The compassionate appointment is not a right. Further, the scheme of compassionate appointment has to be strictly followed. The grant of compassionate appointment cannot be deferred for a long period of time. There cannot be reservation of vacancy till such time when the applicant became major.

4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Canara Bank Vs. AjithKumar G.K.”, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 290 at paragraph No.11 of its judgment carved out the settled principles for grant of compassionate appointment which is here under:- 1 the sudden “11. Decisions of this Court on the contours of appointment on compassionate ground are legion and it would be apt for us to consider certain well-settled principles, which have crystallized through precedents into a rule of law. They are (not in sequential but contextual order): 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 [see General Manager, State Bank of India v. Anju Jain14]. (2008) 8 SCC 475 b) Compassionate appointment cannot be made in the absence of rules or instructions [see Haryana State Electricity Board v. Krishna Devi15]. (2002) 10 SCC 246 c) Compassionate appointment is ordinarily offered in two contingencies carved out as exceptions to the general rule, viz. to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family either on account of death or of medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service [see V. Sivamurthy v. Union of India16]. (2008) 13 SCC 730 d) The whole object of granting compassionate employment by an employer being intended to enable the family members of a deceased or an incapacitated employee to tide financial crisis, appointments on compassionate ground should be made immediately to redeem the family in distress [see Sushma Gosain v. Union of India17]. (1989) 4 SCC 468 e) Since rules relating to compassionate appointment permit a side-door entry, the same have to be given strict interpretation Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi18]. (2009) 11 SCC 453 f) Compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right and the criteria laid down in the Rules must be satisfied by all aspirants [see SAIL v. Madhusudan Das19]. (2008) 15 SCC 560 g) None can claim compassionate appointment by way of [see State of Chattisgarh v. Dhirjo Kumar inheritance Sengar20]. (2009) 13 SCC 600 h) Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our constitutional scheme, and being an exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve [see Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India21]. (2011) 4 SCC 209 i) None can claim compassionate appointment, on the occurrence of death/medical concerned employee (the sole bread earner of the family), as if it were a vested right, and any appointment without considering the financial condition of the family of the legally deceased India v. Amrita Sinha22]. (2021) 20 SCC 695 incapacitation of [see Uttaranchal impermissible [see Union Jal 2 j) An application for compassionate appointment has to be made immediately upon death/incapacitation and in any case within a reasonable period thereof or else a presumption could be drawn that the family of the deceased/incapacitated employee is not in immediate need of financial assistance. Such appointment not being a vested right, the right to apply cannot be exercised at any time in future and it cannot be offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over [see Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Anil Badyakar23]. (2009) 13 SCC 112 k) The object of compassionate employment is not to give a member of a family of the deceased employee a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. Offering compassionate employment as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased and making compassionate appointments in posts above Class III and IV is legally impermissible [see Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana24]. (1994) 4 SCC 138 l) Indigence of the dependents of the deceased employee is the first precondition to bring the case under the scheme of compassionate appointment. If the element of indigence and the need to provide immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution is taken away from compassionate appointment, it would turn out to be a reservation in favour of the dependents of the employee who died while in service which would directly be in conflict with the ideal of equality Articles 14 and 16 of guaranteed the Constitution [see Union of India v. B. Kishore25]. (1994) 4 SCC 138 m) The idea of compassionate appointment is not to provide for endless compassion [see I.G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi26]. (1994) 4 SCC 138 n) Satisfaction that the family members have been facing financial distress and that an appointment on compassionate ground may assist them to tide over such distress is not enough; the dependent must fulfil the eligibility criteria for such appointment [see State of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari27]. (2012) 9 SCC 545 o) There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the applicant becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions [see Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar28]. (2000) 7 SCC 192 p) Grant of family pension or payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as substitute for providing employment assistance. Also, it is only in rare cases and that too if provided by the scheme for compassionate appointment and not otherwise, that a dependent who was a minor on the date of death/incapacitation, can be considered for [see Canara appointment upon attaining majority 3 Public directly Bank (supra)]. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 290 q) An appointment on compassionate ground made many years after the death/incapacitation of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to the dependent of the deceased/incapacitated employee would conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [see National Institute of Technology v. Niraj Kumar Singh29]. (2007) 2 SCC 481 r) Dependents if gainfully employed cannot be considered Commission v. Harinder Service [see Haryana Singh30]. (2007) 2 SCC 481 s) The retiral benefits received by the heirs of the deceased employee are to be taken into consideration to determine if the family of the deceased is left in penury. The court cannot dilute the criterion of penury to one of “not very well-to-do”. [see General Manager (D and PB) v. Kunti Tiwary31]. (2004) 7 SCC 271 t) Financial condition of the family of the deceased employee, allegedly in distress or penury, has to be evaluated or else the object of the scheme would stand defeated inasmuch as in such an eventuality, any and every dependent of an employee dying-in-harness would claim employment as if public employment is heritable [see Union of India v. Shashank Goswami32, (2012) 11 SCC 307 Union Bank of India v. M. T. Latheesh33, (2006) 7 SCC 350National Hydroelectric Power Corporation v. Nank Chand34 (2004) 12 SCC 487and Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja35]. (2004) 7 SCC 265 u) The terminal benefits, investments, monthly family income including the family pension and income of family from other sources, viz. agricultural land were rightly taken into consideration by the authority to decide whether the family is living in penury. [see Somvir Singh (supra)]. v) The benefits received by widow of deceased employee under Family Benefit Scheme assuring monthly payment cannot stand in her way for compassionate appointment. Family Benefit Scheme cannot be equated with benefits of [see Balbir Kaur v. SAIL36] compassionate appointment. (2004) 7 SCC 265 w) The fixation of an income slab is, in fact, a measure which dilutes the element of arbitrariness. While, undoubtedly, the facts of each individual case have to be borne in mind in taking a decision, the fixation of an income slab subserves the purpose of bringing objectivity and uniformity in the process of decision making. [see State of H.P. v. Shashi Kumar37]. (2019) 3 SCC 653 x) Courts cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar38]. (1994) 2 SCC 718 Corporation Insurance [see Life 4 y) Courts cannot allow compassionate appointment dehors the statutory regulations/instructions. Hardship of the candidate does not entitle him to appointment dehors such regulations/instructions [see SBI v. Jaspal Kaur39]. (2007) 9 SCC 571 z) An employer cannot be compelled to make an appointment on compassionate ground contrary to its policy [see Kendriya Sangathan v. Dharmendra Vidyalaya Sharma40]. (2007) 8 SCC 148 It would be of some relevance to mention here that all the decisions referred to above are by coordinate benches of two Judges.

5. The time-frame fixed by the scheme of the Government to file the application for grant of compassionate appointment is five years from the date of death of the employee. Admittedly, in this case, the employee died on 13.01.2012. At the time of death, this petitioner was 10 years of age, he could not have been appointed by any means. Admittedly, he filed an application in the year 2023 which was rejected. Thus, the application was beyond the period of five years which is prescribed under the scheme. Further, since the petitioner was only 10 years at the time of death of the father of the petitioner, he could not have been appointed nor he could apply. Thus, I find no illegality in rejecting the claim of the compassionate appointment.

6. With the above observation, this writ petition stands dismissed.

20.01.2026 S.K.D., cp2 Uploaded on 24.01.2026 (ANANDA SEN, J.) 5