Pending Criminal Case Cannot Be Reason to Deny Compassionate Appointment

The Allahabad High Court has said that if a criminal case is pending against a person, that alone cannot be the reason to deny compassionate appointment. The Court emphasized that the employer must consider such cases objectively, especially when the purpose of compassionate appointment is to support families in distress.

A petitioner applied for a compassionate appointment after the death of his father, who was a government employee. His application was rejected on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him. Authorities stated that his appointment would only be considered after he is acquitted.

Later, a character certificate issued by the District Magistrate was also questioned because it mentioned that the character verification was subject to the outcome of the criminal case. Based on this, the authorities again refused the appointment.

Justice Ajit Kumar, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, explained that:

• There is no absolute right to get appointed if a person is facing criminal charges.
• But just because a case is pending, it cannot be a blanket reason to deny a job—especially when it is a compassionate appointment, which is intended to provide immediate financial relief to the deceased employee’s family.

He added:

“If the employer defers the appointment for a long time just because of a pending case, the whole purpose of giving compassionate appointment is defeated.”

The Court highlighted that the District Magistrate’s character certificate still held value. Since the petitioner had no past criminal history and the case seemed to be a result of family enmity, it should not have been a barrier to the appointment.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s father died leaving behind a widow, Two sons (including the petitioner) and a married daughter.

None of them were earning, and the family was entirely dependent on the deceased employee. Hence, delaying or denying the appointment due to an unresolved case was found to be unjust.

The Court held that rules for regular appointments may be stricter, but in cases of compassionate appointment, a more practical and humane approach is required.

The District Magistrate’s character certificate should have been considered valid. Therefore, the rejection of appointment was not justified. The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the concerned authority to reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders accordingly.

Download Court Order PDF (This PDF is available for Premium Users Only. Click here to join premium)