Compassionate appointment meant for immediate relief, not delayed claims: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Court

• Compassionate appointment is a concession, not a vested right, says High Court
• Court rejected a married daughter's claim made 20 years after father's death
• Financial need and urgency are crucial in compassionate appointment choices.

Did our AI summary help?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently ruled that compassionate appointment is not a vested right, but a discretionary concession meant to relieve the financial hardship faced by a family after the death of a government employee in service. On this basis, the court rejected a married daughter’s claim for appointment to her deceased father’s post.

Compassionate appointments are done with the primary objective of letting the dependent family members of the deceased employee make a living. “While the married daughters can be considered for compassionate appointments, however, in this case, the Punjab Government has adopted the holistic approach whereby they have considered the daughter’s current financial position, which was independent of her father’s livelihood,” said Shashank Agarwal, Founder, Legum Solis.

By rejecting a claim made more than 20 years later, the court reinforced that delay defeats the very purpose of such schemes. “It also stressed that authorities must assess real dependency, including the applicant’s marital status, spouse’s income, employment of other family members, and whether the claimant was actually dependent on the deceased,” said Alay Razvi, Managing Partner, Accord Juris.

What is the case?

The case relates to a writ petition filed by Sukhwinder Kaur before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the rejection of her claim for compassionate appointment. Her father, a Work Charge Bulldozer Operator with the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL), died while in service on 26 March 2001. She sought quashing of the rejection order dated 6 October 2025 and appointment to a Class-III post on compassionate grounds.

The petitioner, a married daughter, applied for compassionate appointment under the revised government policy that included married daughters as eligible dependents. Her claim was initially rejected under the earlier policy and, following a High Court direction, was reconsidered but rejected again. The authorities cited lack of financial dependency, noting that she is married, her husband is in government service with a steady income, she has four siblings, and she resides separately from her widowed mother.

The High Court held that compassionate appointment is not a right but a concession, meant solely to provide immediate financial relief to families facing sudden distress after the death of a breadwinner. It ruled that factors such as marital status, income of family members, number of siblings, and place of residence are relevant in assessing dependency and financial hardship. The court also stressed that the claim was pursued over 20 years after the employee’s death, by which time the element of immediacy had ceased.

Court Ruling

“The father of the petitioner died in 2001, and the claim for compassionate appointment has been pursued intermittently after two decades. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Canara Bank (supra) and other decisions has cautioned against granting compassionate appointment after a long lapse of time, as the immediacy of the crisis is lost. The aim of compassionate appointment is not to open a backdoor entry into employment, but to help the dependents in immediate time of need as the breadwinner passes away,” the court said.

The most significant impact of this ruling lies in the Court’s emphasis on time and financial dependency. “By rejecting a claim made two decades after the employee’s death, the High Court held that once the family has survived the initial crisis, the very basis for compassionate appointment disappears. Allowing delayed claims, the Court warned, would convert a humanitarian scheme into a ‘backdoor entry’ into government service,” said Anadi Mishra, Advocate, Delhi High Court.

Grahita Agarwal – Senior Associate, B. Shanker Advocates LLP, explains the impact, "This judgment is likely to encourage government departments to apply compassionate appointment policies more rigorously, particularly in cases involving delayed claims."