Compassionate appointment is not a fundamental right but a policy-driven exception to provide immediate financial relief, and courts cannot direct appointments contrary to or by rewriting the established statutory or government policy criteria.

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the decision of Respondent No. 3 rejecting the claim of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment vide impugned letter dated 27.03.2025.

2. As per case of petitioner, father of petitioner late Hriday Ram Rawte, who was permanent employee and working as Line Category-I under respondents No.2 to 4, died in harness on 08.06.2022. Petitioner is married daughter of late Hriday Ram Rawte, who married to Devendra Kumar Krashanin in the year 2017 and due to matrimonial discord, she was residing with her father since 2019 and she was fully dependent upon her father. After death of her father, petitioner submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 05.03.2025 in the prescribed format along with relevant documents, which was rejected vide order impugned (Annexuer P-1) observing that her brother namely Arun Kumar is already in Government service working as Assistant Sub-Inspector, therefore according to clause 6 (1) of Circular dated 11.04.2018, petitioner is not entitled for grant of compassionate appointment. Aggrieved by the rejection of her application for grant of compassionate appointment, this writ is filed seeking following reliefs.

“10.1 To issue writ/order/direction of appropriate nature quashing the impugned order communication/letter dated 27.03.2025 (Annexure P-1), since the same is arbitrary and illegal.

10.2 To issue writ/order/direction of appropriate nature commanding the respondent No.2 to 4, to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner.

10.3 Any other relief or reliefs that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the action on the part of respondents authorities while rejecting the claim of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment is arbitrary and erroneous. It is contended the respondent authority failed to appreciate this fact that brother of petitioner is having his own family and is residing separately. It is further contended that father of petitioner was taking care of the petitioner and his mother and other family members and after his death, petitioner and her mother are suffering from financial crises and are unable to maintain themselves.

4. Learned counsel for respondents opposing the submission of learned counsel for petitioner would submit that clause 6 (i) of the Circular is inserted under the policy for grant of compassionate appointment with some purpose. The scheme of compassionate appointment is a social scheme to protect the family members of the deceased employee from sudden financial crisis due to untimely demise of the only bread-winner. There is no error in rejecting the application of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment because one of her brother is already in Government employment, hence, petitioner is not entitled for grant of compassionate appointment.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

6. From perusal of documents available on record would show that father of petitioner died in harness on 08.06.2022 and petitioner thereafter submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 05.03.2025. Along with the writ petition, petitioner has filed the death certificate and consent letter in form of affidavit of family members. On the date of submission of application, consolidated guidelines/ Circular issued by the State Government