JUDGMENT :

SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

1. Heard parties the at length.

2. The petitioner challenges the order by which his appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected.

3. Late Dhondhalo Swansi was a ‘Chowkidar’ under Tamar Police Station in Beat No.7/2. He died in harness on 10.12.2001. This petitioner who claims himself to be son of Dhondhalo Swansi applied for compassionate appointment which was rejected by the impugned order.

4. After going through impugned order, I find that the reason for rejection is that the petitioner was born after one year 11 days of the death of the employee.

5. Admittedly, the date of death of Dhondhalo Swansi was 10.12.2001 and this petitioner was born on 21.12.2002. This fact has been admitted by the petitioner.

6. The aforesaid facts clearly suggests that the petitioner cannot be said to be a son of Dhondhalo Swansi. As a child cannot be born from a person who died more than one year ago from the date of birth of the child.

7. Further, I find that Dhondhalo Swansi died in the year 2001. As per the petitioner’s submission, the petitioner was not even born at the time of death. Now 24 years have lapsed. The basic purpose of giving compassionate appointment is now frustrated. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Canara Bank Vs. AjithKumar G.K.”, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 290 at paragraph No.11 of its judgment carved out the settled principles for grant of compassionate appointment which is here under:-

“ 11. Decisions of this Court on the contours of appointment on compassionate ground are legion and it would be apt for us to consider certain well-settled principles, which have crystallized through precedents into a rule of law. They are (not in sequential but contextual order):

a) Appointment on compassionate ground, which is offered on humanitarian grounds, is an exception to the rule of equality in the matter of public employment [see General Manager, State Bank of India v. Anju Jain¹⁴]. (2008) 8 SCC 475

b) Compassionate appointment cannot be made in the absence of rules or instructions [see Haryana State Electricity Board v. Krishna Devi¹⁵]. (2002) 10 SCC 246

c) Compassionate appointment is ordinarily offered in two contingencies carved out as exceptions to the general rule, viz. to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family either on account of death or of medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service [see V. Sivamurthy v. Union of India¹⁶]. (2008) 13 SCC 730

d) The whole object of granting compassionate employment by an employer being intended to enable the family members of a deceased or an incapacitated employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis, appointments on compassionate ground should be made immediately to redeem the family in distress [see Sushma Gosain v. Union of India¹⁷]. (1989) 4 SCC 468

e) Since rules relating to compassionate appointment permit a side-door entry, the same have to be given strict interpretation [see Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi¹⁸]. (2009) 11 SCC 453

f) Compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right and the criteria laid down in the Rules must be satisfied by all aspirants [see SAIL v. Madhusudan Das¹⁹].(2008) 15 SCC 560

g) None can claim compassionate appointment by way of inheritance [see State of Chattisgarh v. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar²⁰]. (2009) 13 SCC 600

h) Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our constitutional scheme, and being an exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve [see Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India²¹]. (2011) 4 SCC 209

i) None can claim compassionate appointment, on the occurrence of death/medical incapacitation of the concerned employee (the sole bread earner of the family), as if it were a vested right, and any appointment without considering the financial condition of the family of the deceased is legally impermissible [see Union of India v. Amrita Sinha²²]. (2021) 20 SCC 695

j) An application for compassionate appointment has to be