Delhi High Court says Compassionate Appointment Can Be Denied if Family Is Financially Stable

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court clarified that compassionate appointments are granted to help the family of a government servant who passes away during their service, in order to prevent financial hardship. However, if the family is already financially stable or has received enough support from other sources, such appointments can be denied.

What Happened in the Case?

The petitioner’s father worked as a Junior Sports Instructor (Judo) at the National Bal Bhawan (NBB) for 27 years. He passed away on May 21, 2021, due to severe Covid-19 pneumonia. The petitioner, who is his younger son, applied for a compassionate appointment following his father’s death. The family, which included the petitioner, his brother, and his mother, had received several financial benefits after the father’s passing. These included a family pension of ₹36,416 per month, ₹49.64 lakh in assets, and other retirement benefits like Gratuity and Provident Fund.

The petitioner’s mother requested a job for him on compassionate grounds, but the application was rejected by the NBB. The rejection was based on the fact that the family had sufficient financial resources and did not meet the criteria for compassionate appointment.

Court’s Ruling

The Delhi High Court reviewed the case and agreed with the NBB’s decision. The court highlighted that compassionate appointments are only meant for families facing severe financial hardship after a government servant’s death. It emphasized that the family should be in financial distress and in need of immediate support. Since the family had substantial savings and a steady income, the court concluded that they did not require additional financial assistance through a government job.

Additionally, the petitioner argued that his brother, who had returned to India and was unemployed, should be considered a dependent. However, the court noted that the family had earlier stated that the petitioner’s brother was living and working in the US and was not financially dependent on them. This inconsistency further weakened the petitioner’s case.

• Download Court Order