The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently dismissed a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment, holding that such appointments cannot be claimed as a matter of right, particularly when no scheme is in operation. The judgment underscores the importance of timely claims and the absence of entitlement to compassionate appointments in the absence of an active policy.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Syed Khajamohiddin, sought compassionate appointment in the Central Warehousing Corporation (respondent) following the death of his father, who was employed as a Dusting Operator. The father died in harness on 19.06.1994, leaving behind a wife, three daughters, and a minor son (the petitioner). Since the petitioner was a minor at the time of his father’s death, his mother initially sought compassionate appointment on his behalf.
Key Facts
- The petitioner’s father died while in service on 19.06.1994
- The family submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 01.10.1997, which was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was a minor
- The respondent Corporation initially considered offering compassionate appointment to the petitioner’s mother but ultimately declined as the family insisted on the appointment being made in favour of the petitioner
- The respondent Corporation, by communication dated 16.04.2003, rejected another representation from the petitioner, citing the implementation of Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) and a reduction in employee strength
- The petitioner filed the present writ petition (W.P. No. 15529 of 2005) challenging the rejection of his claim for compassionate appointment
Procedural History
- 01.10.1997: Application for compassionate appointment submitted by the petitioner’s mother
- 16.04.2003: Respondent Corporation rejected the petitioner’s representation citing VRS implementation
- 2005: Present writ petition filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court
- 19.06.2026: Judgment delivered dismissing the writ petition
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a direction to the respondent Corporation to grant him compassionate appointment in an appropriate post, alleging that the rejection of his claim was arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether the petitioner could claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right, particularly when the respondent Corporation had no active scheme for such appointments at the time of the petition.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- The petitioner’s counsel argued that the respondent Corporation’s refusal to consider his case for compassionate appointment was arbitrary and unjust
- It was contended that the petitioner’s father died in harness, leaving the family dependent on his income, and thus, the petitioner’s claim deserved consideration
- The counsel urged the Court to direct the respondent to reconsider the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment
For the Respondent
- The respondent’s counsel contended that the Corporation had initially considered offering compassionate appointment to the petitioner’s mother but could not accommodate the petitioner as he was a minor at the relevant time
- It was further argued that the respondent Corporation had no policy in place to consider compassionate appointments at the time of the petition, rendering the claim unsustainable
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that while the petitioner’s father died in harness, the respondent Corporation had a scheme for compassionate appointments at the relevant time. However, since the petitioner was a minor, his request could not be accommodated. The Court noted that the family could have sought appointment for the petitioner’s mother or an eligible daughter but chose not to do so for reasons best known to them.
The Court relied on the settled legal principle that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, particularly when no scheme is in operation. It further noted that due to the efflux of time, the family had moved on and settled into their lives, making the claim untenable. The Court held:
"It is well settled now that one cannot, as a matter of right, claim compassionate appointment, particularly, when there is no such scheme in operation. Due to efflux of time, now, the family of deceased has moved on and settled in their lives at different levels. When there is no scheme as such to even consider the claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment, this Court cannot compel the respondent Corporation to extend any such benefit."
The Verdict
The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner could not claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right in the absence of an active scheme. No costs were awarded, and all pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Right
- Practitioners must note that compassionate appointment is not an entitlement but a discretionary benefit extended under specific schemes
- Courts will not compel employers to grant compassionate appointments if no scheme is in operation at the time of the claim
Timeliness Is Critical
- Claims for compassionate appointment must be made promptly after the death of the employee
- Delay in filing such claims may result in the family being deemed to have moved on, rendering the claim unsustainable
Eligibility of Family Members
- Where the dependent is a minor, other eligible family members (such as the spouse or adult children) may be considered for compassionate appointment
- Failure to avail such opportunities at the relevant time may weaken subsequent claims
