Compassionate Appointment – Married Daughter's Eligibility

Source: High Court of Punjab and Haryana 

Why in News? 

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Sukhwinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others (2025) dismissed a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment, holding that the authorities had rightly considered material factors including the petitioner's marital status, husband's government income, existence of siblings, and separate residence to determine the absence of immediate financial distress. 

What was the Background of Sukhwinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others (2025) Case? 

• The petitioner's father was employed as a Work Charge Bulldozer Operator under the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) and died in harness on 26.03.2001. 
• The petitioner, a married daughter, applied for compassionate appointment under the policy dated 27.10.2022. 
• Her claim was initially rejected on the ground that being a married daughter, she was not eligible under the policy dated 21.11.2002. 
• Pursuant to an earlier order of the High Court in CWP No. 9447 of 2025, the matter was reconsidered. 
• The claim was rejected afresh vide order dated 06.10.2025 on the grounds that: 
  • The petitioner had four siblings. 
  • She resided at a different address from her mother. 
  • Questions arose regarding her dependency and the genuineness of the financial crisis. 
• The petitioner approached the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the rejection order and direction for appointment on compassionate grounds on a Class-III post. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court reiterated well-settled legal principles that compassionate appointment is not a right, but a concession granted to tide over sudden financial crisis arising from the death of the sole breadwinner, meant to provide immediate relief rather than backdoor entry into employment. 
• The Court cited key Supreme Court precedents: 
  • Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi (2009): Rules relating to compassionate appointment permit side-door entry and must be given strict interpretation. 
  • SAIL v. Madhusudan Das (2008): Compassionate appointment is a concession, not a right, and criteria must be satisfied by all aspirants. 
  • Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K. (2025): Where the family is not in immediate financial distress, the very basis for compassionate appointment ceases to exist. Financial condition, availability of other means of sustenance, and genuine indigence are critical factors. 
  • State Bank of India v. Somvir Singh (2007): Terminal benefits, investments, monthly family income including family pension, and income from other sources must be considered to decide whether the family is living in penury. 
• The Court found that the rejection order dated 06.10.2025 had properly considered relevant factors: 
  • The petitioner is married with her husband in government service having disclosed annual income. 
  • Four siblings exist, some of whom are employed. 
  • Separate residence from mother raised legitimate doubt regarding continuous dependency. 
  • Policy requires individual merit-based examination considering social and economic factors. 
• The Court held that the contention regarding siblings and address being irrelevant was misconceived, as these factors directly relate to determining genuine penury and dependency. 
• The Court noted that the petitioner's father died in 2001, with the claim pursued after two decades. Citing Canara Bank (supra), the Court emphasized that compassionate appointment should not be granted after long delays as the immediacy of crisis is lost. 
• The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding that compassionate appointment is a relief strictly governed by policy and judicial discipline, not an automatic entitlement. 

What is Compassionate Appointment? 

About: 

• Compassionate appointment is a scheme providing employment to a dependent family member of a government employee who dies in harness or becomes permanently incapacitated during service. 
• The primary objective is to provide immediate financial relief to the bereaved family facing sudden economic crisis due to loss of the breadwinner. 
• It is an exception to the normal recruitment process and not governed by the regular principles of merit-based selection. 

Legal Character: 

• Compassionate appointment is a concession or privilege, not a vested right or legal entitlement. 
• It must be granted strictly in accordance with the applicable policy and rules of the employer organization. 
• The scheme permits a side-door entry into public employment, and therefore requires strict interpretation. 
• Courts cannot compel employers to grant compassionate appointment contrary to their policy. 

Essential Requirements: 

• Immediate Financial Crisis: The family must be facing genuine and immediate financial hardship requiring urgent assistance. 
• Death in Harness: The employee must have died while in service or become permanently incapacitated. 
• Dependent Family Member: The applicant must be a dependent family member as defined in the relevant policy. 
• Timely Application: The claim should be made within a reasonable time to address immediate need; long delays undermine the urgency basis. 
• Genuine Indigence: Authorities must verify that the family has no other sufficient means of livelihood or support.