[Compassionate Appointment] Law Prevailing On Date Of Employee's Death Applicable Irrespective Of When Application For Appointment Was Submitted: Rajasthan HC

The Rajasthan High Court has granted relief of compassionate appointment, in a decade-old matter, to the petitioner, affirming that the policy governing such appointment had to be the one that was existing on the date of demise of the concerned person and not on the date of application filed for such appointment.

The division bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman and Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati was hearing a special appeal filed by the Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (AVVNL) against the decision of a single judge that had directed the appellants to consider the respondent for compassionate appointment.

“In the present case, the denial of compassionate appointment by the appellant-department without any just cause, coupled with the fact that litigation has been going on for over a decade, shows the that on the one hand, the family has been under bereavement due to sad demise of the family member, who was rather the sole breadwinner of the family, while on the other hand, the inaction on the part of the appellant-department, while declining the compassionate appointment in question, deprived the family of the means of coming out of the penurious state.”

The respondent was the son of a Grade-II Helper who was working with the appellants and passed away on February 17, 2011. When the respondent applied for compassionate appointment, the application was rejected on the grounds that the respondent had more than 2 children after the cut-off date, which violated the eligibility criteria prescribed by the notification dated February 24, 2011 that was adopted by the appellants on September 5, 2011.

It was submitted by the appellants that the respondent's application for compassionate appointment was submitted after adoption of the prescribed criteria by the appellants, and hence, he was not entitled for the appointment.

On the other hand, it was the case of the respondent that the criteria relied upon to reject his application was adopted by the appellants after the death of his father. At the time of his father's death, no such criteria were in existence, hence, the same could not have been applied retrospectively to deny compassionate appointment to him.

After hearing the contentions, the Court referred to the Supreme Court case of N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka & Ors. in which governing principles for grant of compassionate appointment were laid down and one such principle was, “The norms applicable at the time of the consideration of the application shall be the governing criteria for evaluating claims for compassionate appointment.”

However, it was highlighted that another judgment was given by the Apex Court after N.C. Santhosh in State of Madhya Pradesh v Amit Shrivas which held that, “It is trite to say that there cannot be any inherent right to compassionate appointment but rather, it is a right based on certain criteria, especially to provide succour to a needy family. This has to be in terms of the applicable policy as existing on the date of demise, unless a subsequent policy is made applicable retrospectively”.

In this background, the Court stated that in the present case the policy disabling a candidate with more than 2 children was adopted by the appellants long time after the employee's death. It was held that in the absence of any such criteria existing on the day of the employee's death, it was appropriate to strictly apply the law prevailing on the day of death of the employee instead of applying the notification retrospectively.

“This Court thus observes that rejection of the candidature for the appointment on compassionate grounds in such circumstance, would violate the objective of the law intended to enable the family members in distress, of a deceased or an incapacitated employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis.”

Accordingly, the special appeal was dismissed.

Title: Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors. v Mukesh Kumar Berwa

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 88

Click Here To Read/Download Order