NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has said a compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule and the very object of granting such employment is to enable the affected family to tide over a sudden crisis.

A bench of Justices M R Shah and Krishna Murari allowed an appeal filed by the Maharashtra government against the Bombay High Court's order.

The HC had rejected the plea by the state against a direction by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal to grant appointment to the second married daughter of an employee.

In the case, after the death of the employee, his wife was appointed on compassionate ground. However, she too died while in service. Thereafter the elder daughter made application for appointment on compassionate ground. The application was rejected on the ground that she is a married daughter.

However, the state government, subsequently, on February 26, 2013, amended the rules allowing the employment to one of the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased government servant on compassionate grounds.

Relying upon the rules, the second married daughter made an application for the appointment that too after seven years of death of her mother.

Citing the law laid down by this Court, the bench said compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood.

"In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased," the bench said.

The court said in view of the facts of the case on hand, to appoint the respondent now would be contrary to the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground.

"The respondent cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased employee, i.e., her mother. Even otherwise, she shall not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years from the death of the deceased employee," the bench said.
[Read Judgment ]