Why Chhattisgarh High Court Denied Woman Job On Compassionate Ground After Mother’s Death

A recent judgment by the Chhattisgarh High Court has brought attention to how strict the rules are for compassionate job appointments. The case involved a woman who lost her mother at a young age and later applied for her mother’s government job once she became an adult. She hoped the appointment would help her rebuild her life after years of hardship.

Her mother, Verma, had worked as an Assistant Teacher and passed away on December 9, 2000. At that time, the petitioner was a minor. After her mother’s death, her father remarried and left the two daughters to be raised by their elderly maternal grandmother. The petitioner continued her studies and completed Class 10 in 2011 and Class 12 in 2013.

How The Case Reached The High Court

After turning

18, she applied for a compassionate appointment on August 5, 2015. However, the education department rejected her request on August 29, 2017. The department cited policy rules and said she was not eligible. She then filed a writ petition before the Chhattisgarh High Court.

Her lawyers argued that the authorities had wrongly used the 2003 policy, while her mother’s death occurred in 2000, when the 1994 policy was in force. They pointed out that the 1994 policy allowed children of deceased employees to apply once they became adults. Since she filed her application soon after reaching adulthood in 2015, her lawyers said it was within the permitted time.

They asked the court to cancel the department’s order and direct the authorities to give her the job as per the older policy.

What Compassionate Appointment Legally Means

Vinay Joy, Partner at Khaitan & Co, explained to ET Wealth Online that compassionate appointments are mainly granted in government jobs. He said that normally, government hiring must follow open competition under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

But a compassionate appointment is an exception meant to support a family after the sudden death or medical incapacitation of the breadwinner.

According to Joy, this benefit reportedly exists “to meet the sudden financial crisis arising in a family,” and courts have repeatedly said it is a “discretionary concession and not a right.” He added that eligibility depends entirely on the specific policy created by the employer. Once a policy is in place, all decisions must follow that policy.

Why The High Court Dismissed Her Plea

Joy said the High Court’s decision in this case was based mainly on the long delay. Her mother died in 2000, but the application was made about 15 years later. The court felt that compassionate appointments are meant to provide immediate help during a crisis, and such help was no longer needed after so many years.

The High Court stated in its judgment dated October 17, this year, that although the petitioner was a minor at the time of her mother’s death, she applied only after becoming an adult many years later. As quoted by The Economic Times, the court said: “The provision of compassionate appointment is a way to provide immediate financial assistance to the families who have experienced a sudden hardship. The petitioner shall not be entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds after a numbers of years from the date of death of her deceased mother.”

Supreme Court’s Past Ruling Cited

The court also referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Maharashtra and another Vs Madhuri Maruti Vidhate (AIR Online 2022 SC 471). In that ruling, the Supreme Court said compassionate appointments exist only to help a family overcome a sudden crisis, and cannot be granted years later once the crisis has passed.

The High Court concluded that the Single Judge’s earlier order was correct and dismissed the appeal.

Could The Case Have Been Handled Differently?

According to Joy, the employer had a policy at the time of the employee’s death that allowed minors to apply once they became adults. This policy was later changed.

Reportedly, Joy said the court should ideally have first checked which policy applied and whether the petitioner qualified under that policy, instead of only focusing on the object of compassionate appointment. Had the earlier policy been applied, Joy noted, the decision might have been different.