Principles on Compassionate Appointment: Supreme Court’s Key Takeaways
The Supreme Court of India recently clarified in the case of Canara Bank vs. Ajithkumar G.K. (2025 INSC 184) the principles governing compassionate appointments, an employment scheme designed to help the families of deceased or incapacitated government employees.
In a landmark judgment delivered by a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice P.K. Mishra, the Court provided a structured interpretation of the law surrounding compassionate employment.
What is a Compassionate Appointment?
A compassionate appointment is a concession granted by the government or public sector institutions to assist the dependents of a deceased or medically incapacitated employee.
It serves as an exception to the constitutional principles of equality in public employment and is aimed at preventing financial distress for affected families.
However, as the Supreme Court has reaffirmed, this concession is not a right and is subject to strict legal interpretation.
Key Supreme Court Rulings on Compassionate Appointments
The judgment consolidates various precedents and highlights the following these principles:
1. Exception to the Rule of Equality
Compassionate appointments are an exception to the general rule of public employment based on merit and equality (State Bank of India v. Anju Jain, (2008) 8 SCC 475]).
2. No Appointment Without Rules
Compassionate appointments cannot be granted in the absence of an established policy, scheme, or set of rules (Haryana State Electricity Board v. Krishna Devi, (2002) 10 SCC 246.
3. Only in Specific Cases of Crisis
Such appointments are allowed only in two situations:
- Death of the sole breadwinner
- Medical incapacitation of an employee (V. Sivamurthy v. Union of India, (2008) 13 SCC 730
4. Immediate Assistance is Key
Appointments should be made promptly to tide over financial distress. Delayed applications suggest that the family is not in immediate need (Sushma Gosain v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 468).
5. No “Side-Door” Entry into Public Service
Compassionate appointments should not be used as a backdoor entry into government jobs and must be strictly regulated (Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi, (2009) 11 SCC 453.
6. A Concession, Not a Right
Dependents cannot demand an appointment as a matter of right (SAIL v. Madhusudan Das, (2008) 15 SCC 560.
7. No Inheritance of Jobs
Government jobs cannot be passed down as inheritance after an employee’s death (State of Chhattisgarh v. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar, (2009) 13 SCC 600.
8. Strict Interpretation of Rules
The Court emphasized that the policy must be applied only for the purpose it serves—financial distress—and should not be misused (Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 209.
9. Assessment of Financial Condition is Essential
The family’s financial situation must be assessed before granting a compassionate appointment (Union of India v. Amrita Sinha, (2021) 20 SCC 695.
10. Application must be filed without delay
Applications must be submitted within a reasonable time after the employee’s death or incapacitation. Any delay suggests a lack of financial crisis (Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Anil Badyakar, (2009) 13 SCC 112.
11. No Automatic Replacement in the Same Post
Compassionate appointments do not guarantee employment in the same role as the deceased employee (Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138.
12. The Core Principle is Financial Need
The main justification for compassionate appointment is financial hardship, not just a reduction in living standards (Union of India v. B. Kishore, (2011) 13 SCC 131).
13. No “Endless Compassion”
The Court clarified that compassionate employment is not meant to provide lifetime security, only immediate relief (I.G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, (2007) 6 SCC 162.
14. Eligibility Criteria Must be Met
Even if a family is in financial distress, the dependent must meet all eligibility requirements for the job (State of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari, (2012) 9 SCC 545.
15. No Vacancy Reservations for Minors.
If the dependent is a minor, the job cannot be held vacant until they become eligible, unless specifically provided for in the scheme (Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2000) 7 SCC 192).
16. Family Pension is Not a Substitute
Receiving a family pension does not automatically disqualify dependents from seeking compassionate appointment (Balbir Kaur v. SAIL, (2000) 6 SCC 493.
17. Delayed Appointment Violates Equality
Granting appointments years after the death of an employee is unconstitutional (National Institute of Technology v. Niraj Kumar Singh, (2007) 2 SCC 481.
18. Gainfully Employed Dependents Are Ineligible
A dependent already earning a sufficient income is not eligible (Haryana Public Service Commission v. Harinder Singh, (1998) 5 SCC 452.
19. Terminal Benefits Must be Considered
Authorities must consider financial assistance already received (pension, gratuity, life insurance) before approving an appointment (General Manager v. Kunti Tiwary, (2004) 7 SCC 271.
20. Hardship Alone is Not a Reason
The Court ruled that merely facing hardships does not entitle a candidate to a compassionate appointment. SBI v. Jaspal Kaur (2007) 9 SCC 571.
21. Employers Cannot Be Forced
An employer cannot be compelled to grant a compassionate appointment if it goes against their policy (Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Dharmendra Sharma, (2007) 8 SCC 148.
22. Courts Cannot Override Policies
Courts cannot direct compassionate appointments beyond the policy framework (LIC v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar, (1994) 2 SCC 718.
23. Financial Position Must Be Verified
Authorities should verify the total financial standing of the dependent before making a decision (State of H.P. v. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653.
24. No Appointment After Crisis is Over
If a family’s financial distress is resolved over time, a compassionate appointment cannot be claimed later. Union of India v. Shashank Goswami (2012) 11 SCC 307, Union Bank of India v. M. T. Latheesh (2006) 7 SCC 350, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation v. Nank Chand (2004) 12 SCC 487 and Punjab National Bank v.Ashwini Kumar Taneja (2004) 7 SCC 265].
25. Courts Should Not Be Influenced by Sympathy
Appointments should not be granted based on sympathetic considerations alone (State of H.P. v. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653.
26. Appointment must align with constitutional principles
Any deviation from legal rules can violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution (Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Dharmendra Sharma, (2007) 8 SCC 148.
Conclusion of Compassionate Appointment
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that compassionate appointments are an exception and must be granted strictly in cases of financial distress.
This ruling provides clarity for government authorities, ensuring fair and uniform implementation of these policies.