The Gujarat High Court has reaffirmed that compassionate appointment in public service is a humanitarian exception, not a right, and must be grounded in demonstrable financial distress - not mere dependency or lapse of time. This judgment clarifies the legal threshold for such appointments, particularly when the deceased employee’s child is a minor at the time of death and seeks employment years after attaining majority.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The respondent, Sujatha Chandrasekhar Pillai, sought compassionate appointment following the death of her mother, Mrs. Nani Kutti T., a staff nurse at Civil Hospital, Junagadh, who died in service on 4 April 1987. At the time, Sujatha was a minor. Her father, Chandrasekhar V. Narayan Pillai, was already employed as a driver in the Central Government. After attaining majority, Sujatha applied for compassionate appointment on 21 July 1999, which was rejected.
Procedural History
- 1999: Respondent applied for compassionate appointment; application rejected.
- 2000: Filed Regular Civil Suit No. 485 of 2000 seeking appointment.
- 2002: Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the respondent was maintained by her father and received family pension, hence not in financial distress.
- 2005: First Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s decision, granting appointment on grounds of alleged abandonment and financial hardship.
- 2026: Second Appeal heard by Gujarat High Court.
Relief Sought
The respondent sought appointment on compassionate grounds. During pendency of litigation, she secured a government job as a teacher in 2016 and subsequently withdrew her claim for appointment, seeking only monetary compensation up to August 2016.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a dependent child of a deceased government employee, whose father is gainfully employed, can claim compassionate appointment merely upon attaining majority after a long delay, without proving financial distress or abandonment.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The State argued that compassionate appointment is an exception to merit-based recruitment, intended only for families plunged into penury by the death of the sole breadwinner. Since the respondent’s father was a government employee and continued to support her - including funding her boarding school education and providing access to family pension - the foundational condition of financial distress was absent. The State further contended that the appellate court erred by applying the 1975 notification instead of the 2000 Government Resolution, which explicitly limited eligibility to widows, widowers, and unmarried children only if the family was in financial distress.
For the Respondent
The respondent argued that her father’s remarriage led to her separation from the family, and that family pension alone was insufficient to sustain her. She claimed she was effectively abandoned and thus entitled to compassionate appointment as a dependent child. She relied on the principle that compassionate appointments are meant to alleviate hardship, regardless of the father’s employment, and that the 2000 Resolution should not apply retrospectively.
The Court's Analysis
The Court emphasized that compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a discretionary, humanitarian measure. It cited Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K. and Union of India v. Amrita Sinha to affirm that financial distress must be proven, not presumed. The Court found no evidence that the respondent was abandoned or deprived of support by her father. On the contrary, records showed she attended a boarding school with her father’s financial backing and received family pension.
"The foundational aspect that she was not maintained by her father and that she was in financial trauma or penury, without having been backed by any evidence on record, does not stand proved."
The Court further held that the First Appellate Court’s reliance on the 1975 notification was misplaced. The 2000 Government Resolution (Exhibit-36) was the governing policy at the time of application, and it required proof of financial distress. The 1975 letter (Exhibit-35) merely suggested a review of income limits and did not constitute a policy. The appellate court’s conclusion that the respondent was in distress was based on surmise, not evidence.
The Court also noted that the respondent had already secured government employment in 2016, rendering her claim for appointment moot.
The Verdict
The State won. The Gujarat High Court held that compassionate appointment cannot be granted absent proof of financial distress, even if the applicant is a minor child of a deceased employee. The appellate court’s decree was set aside, and the trial court’s dismissal was restored.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Financial Distress Must Be Proven, Not Presumed
- Practitioners must now establish concrete evidence of financial hardship - such as lack of income, assets, or support - beyond mere dependency.
- The mere fact that a parent is employed does not automatically disqualify a claim, but the burden shifts to the applicant to show that the family unit is not financially viable.
- Oral assertions of abandonment without documentary or witness support will not suffice.
Delay and Subsequent Employment Undermine Claims
- Applications made years after attaining majority, especially after securing alternative employment, are viewed with skepticism.
- Courts will not entertain claims for appointment once the applicant has obtained public employment through other means.
- Claims for monetary compensation post-employment remain open but must be pursued separately.
Government Resolutions Govern, Not Outdated Notifications
- Only the latest applicable Government Resolution governs eligibility; earlier circulars or letters cannot override them unless expressly preserved.
- Practitioners must verify the operative policy at the time of application, not the time of death.
- Relying on outdated or non-binding letters as policy instruments is legally untenable.
