1. Compassionate appointment claim by son of deceased LIC employee based on father's death. (Para 1 , 2 , 8 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 698
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.
Sagar Samaria, S/o. Late Sh. Rakesh Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
Life Insurance Corporation Of India, Through Its Senior Divisional Manager - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5135 of 2022
Decided On : 04-02-2026
Important Points
Compassionate appointment is not a vested right but is governed by employer rules. If rules prohibit appointment when a family member is gainfully employed, such employment at the time of death precludes eligibility, regardless of subsequent changes in family composition, such as the marriage of the employed member.
Subject
Service Law - Compassionate Appointment
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Recruitment Instructions for Class III and IV staff of a corporation - Instruction No. 21(iii) - Compassionate appointment - Eligibility criteria - Condition that no family member, specifically spouse, son, or unmarried daughter, is gainfully employed - If a daughter was gainfully employed at the time of the employee's death, the claim for compassionate appointment is precluded by the rules, regardless of her subsequent marriage before the date of application (Paras 11, 12).
(B) Compassionate Appointment - Nature and Scope - Not a vested right or a matter of right but an exception to merit-based recruitment intended to provide immediate financial assistance to a family facing a sudden crisis (Paras 17, 18).
(C) Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Court will not interfere with the decision of an employer to reject a claim for compassionate appointment if such rejection is based on the prevailing policy and instructions of the employer (Paras 19, 20).
Facts of the case:
The father of the petitioner, an employee of a corporation, died while in service. At the time of death, one of the daughters was gainfully employed with the government. Following the death, the daughter married and left the family home. Subsequently, an application for compassionate appointment was filed by the mother on behalf of the petitioner. The corporation rejected the request on the ground that the daughter was gainfully employed, leading to the present petition.
Findings of Court:
The court found that on the date of the employee's death, the daughter was an unmarried daughter and a member of the family who was gainfully employed. Therefore, the condition stipulated in the corporation's instructions, which requires that no member of the family (spouse, son, or unmarried daughter) be gainfully employed, was not met.
Issues: Whether a candidate is entitled to compassionate appointment if a daughter was gainfully employed at the time of the employee's death, despite the daughter having married and left the family before the application for appointment was submitted.
Ratio Decidendi: Compassionate appointment is governed by the specific rules and instructions of the employer and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Since the applicable instructions prohibited appointment if any spouse, son, or unmarried daughter was gainfully employed, and the daughter held such employment at the time of the employee's death, the rejection was valid. The subsequent marriage of the daughter does not negate the fact of her employment at the critical time of the employee's demise.
Result: writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is hereby dismissed
(B) Compassionate Appointment - Nature and Scope - Not a vested right or a matter of right but an exception to merit-based recruitment intended to provide immediate financial assistance to a family facing a sudden crisis (Paras 17, 18).
(C) Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Court will not interfere with the decision of an employer to reject a claim for compassionate appointment if such rejection is based on the prevailing policy and instructions of the employer (Paras 19, 20).
Facts of the case:
The father of the petitioner, an employee of a corporation, died while in service. At the time of death, one of the daughters was gainfully employed with the government. Following the death, the daughter married and left the family home. Subsequently, an application for compassionate appointment was filed by the mother on behalf of the petitioner. The corporation rejected the request on the ground that the daughter was gainfully employed, leading to the present petition.
Findings of Court:
The court found that on the date of the employee's death, the daughter was an unmarried daughter and a member of the family who was gainfully employed. Therefore, the condition stipulated in the corporation's instructions, which requires that no member of the family (spouse, son, or unmarried daughter) be gainfully employed, was not met.
Issues: Whether a candidate is entitled to compassionate appointment if a daughter was gainfully employed at the time of the employee's death, despite the daughter having married and left the family before the application for appointment was submitted.
Ratio Decidendi: Compassionate appointment is governed by the specific rules and instructions of the employer and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Since the applicable instructions prohibited appointment if any spouse, son, or unmarried daughter was gainfully employed, and the daughter held such employment at the time of the employee's death, the rejection was valid. The subsequent marriage of the daughter does not negate the fact of her employment at the critical time of the employee's demise.
Result: writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is hereby dismissed
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
- labour and employment
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Samdaria Mr. Arihant Samdaria
For the Respondent: Mr. Arun Sharma Ms. Simran Jain Ms. Nidhi Mathur
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Samdaria Mr. Arihant Samdaria
For the Respondent: Mr. Arun Sharma Ms. Simran Jain Ms. Nidhi Mathur
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over whether married gainfully employed daughter's exclusion from family qualifies for compassionate appointment. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. Compassionate appointment cannot be granted in violation of LIC's policy; married daughter's employment status at death is relevant. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
4. Claim for compassionate appointment must comply with LIC's instructions; no violation of policy permits rejection. (Para 12 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
5. Writ petition dismissed; no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. (Para 22 , 23 )
6. What is the primary condition for compassionate appointment under LIC's recruitment instructions?
The relaxation is admissible only if no family member (spouse, son, or unmarried daughter) is gainfully employed. (Para 11 , 12 )
7. Does a married daughter who was unmarried at the time of employee's death affect eligibility for compassionate appointment?
Yes, the relevant date is the death of the employee when the daughter was unmarried and gainfully employed, making her a family member. (Para 12 , 19 )
8. Can compassionate appointment be claimed as a vested right?
No, compassionate appointment is not a vested right; it is an exception to public appointment rules and must follow the scheme. (Para 15 , 17 , 18 )
9. Is the judgment in Tarun Kumar Jain applicable to LIC rules?
No, the ratio in Tarun Kumar Jain is not applicable as LIC's own instructions govern the claim. (Para 13 , 20 )
ORDER :
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.
1. Instant writ petition is preferred by petitioner with following prayer:
“To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting the letters sated 27.01.2022 and 15.02.2022.
To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate basis on suitable post with all consequential basis with interest @ 18 percent annum.”
2. The brief facts of the case are that the father of petitioner, Shri Rakesh Kumar, died on 6.12.2021 when he was working as Higher Grade Assistant (HGA) with the respondent corporation (LIC). At the time of death, he was survived by his wife Manju Lata, two sons Karan and Sagar, and two daughters Sapna and Surbhi, besides parents of deceased. On 05.01.2022, the mother of petitioner submitted an application to grant compassionate appointment to petitioner in place of her deceased husband Rakesh Kumar. The respondents had declined the request of the petitioner vide letter dated 27.1.2022 on the premise that daughter of late Shri Rakesh Kumar, Ms. Surbhi is gainfully employed with the government. The case of petitioner is that Surbhi had been married on 29.12.2021 even before making the application for compassionate appointment and, on date of consideration, Ms. Surbhi was not part of the family of the petitioner to take care of the family of the deceased.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner, while placing reliance upon judgment in case of Tarun Kumar Jain v. State of Rajasthan (2021 (1) RLW 583), has submitted that the respondents have ignored the relevant facts, representation and settled legal position and rejected the application of petitioner in a mechanical and arbitrary manner. He further submitted that the rule and regulation of respondent LIC does not provide for denial of compassionate appointment on the ground that married daughter of deceased is gainfully employed with any other government institution.
4. He further placed reliance upon judgment in case of State of H.P. Vs. Abhishek Kumar (2024) 5 SCC 280 and submitted that the marriage of Ms. Surbhi was already fixed and soon before the marriage, the father of petitioner expired, thereby leaving the family in lurch. He further referred the date of marriage of Surbhi and submitted that the bereaved family had even performed the marriage function of Surbhi in the month of December 2021 and after the marriage, Surbhi was not part of the family. He also submitted that the respondents have failed to consider that on the date of application, not a single family member of petitioner was gainfully employed and there was no support for the family of petitioner from anywhere. He further submitted that the rules have to be given effect to so that they may serve the purpose, and in the instant case, the date of consideration and the provisions of the rules have to be considered by the respondents.
5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents and submitted that the respondents are bound by LIC Recruitment (of Class III and IV Staff) Instruction, 1993 and as per inquiry conducted by respondents, the daughter of deceased Ms. Surbhi, was gainfully employed with effect from 15.07.2020 in the State Government, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment.
6. He further referred the provisions for compassionate appointment and submitted that the issue of compassionate appointment has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sushma Gosain vs. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 468; LIC vs. Shri Asha Ramchandara Abedkar and another (1994) 2 SCC 718; Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138; Directorate of Education Secretary vs. Pushpendra Kumar (1998) 3 SCR 342; State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. vs. Dharam Bir (1998) 6 SCC 165; Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Anr. vs. State of M.P. and others AIR 1999 SC 2894; S. Mohan vs. Government of Tamil Nadu (1999) 1 LLJ 539 SC; HPSC vs. Harinder S
