$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5350/2019 SATINDER KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Atul Varma, Advocate.

versus THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Saurabh Prakash and Mr. Utsav Jain, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 28.01.2026

1. This writ petition seeks a direction to the Respondent to appoint the Petitioner on compassionate grounds in place of his father, late Shri Chet Singh Dhiryan, who died in harness while serving the Respondent.

2. The material facts are not in dispute. Late Shri Chet Singh Dhiryan, an Administrative Officer with the Respondent, died on 18^th November, 2004 at the age of about 56 years and 3 months.

3. At the relevant time, the Respondent had discontinued the scheme for compassionate appointment with effect from 1^st October, 2002, i.e., prior to the demise of the Petitioner’s father. In lieu thereof, a new scheme providing for lump sum monetary compensation to the legal heirs of deceased employees was introduced uniformly across all four Public Sector General Insurance Companies. In terms of the said scheme, a lump sum amount of ₹1,00,000/- was paid to the legal heirs of late Shri Chet Singh Dhiryan. In addition thereto, terminal dues amounting to ₹14,73,990/- were released to the family of the deceased. Further, a family pension of ₹7,919/- per month was sanctioned in favour of the widow, which, as per the Respondent, stood revised to ₹23,923/- per month at the time of filing of the counter-affidavit.

4. Soon after the death, the widow, Smt. Jagdishwati, submitted a representation dated 3^rd December, 2004 seeking compassionate appointment for one of her sons. The Respondent rejected the request on 21^st December, 2004 on the ground that the compassionate appointment scheme had been discontinued. Thereafter, an undated letter received in May, 2012 again sought compassionate appointment, this time for the present Petitioner, and met the same fate. A representation was also forwarded later through the National Commission for Scheduled Castes on 28^th January, 2014.

5. The Respondent thereafter introduced a fresh compassionate appointment scheme on 12^th November, 2014. The scheme is expressly prospective. It applies only to cases of death in harness or retirement on medical grounds occurring on or after 1^st November, 2014 and, additionally, excludes cases where the employee had attained the age of 55 years. Clause 8 also indicates that applications are to be considered, ordinarily, up to five years from the date of death/medical retirement occurring on or after 1^st November, 2014. This clause reads as under:

“The scheme comes into force prospectively from 01^st November, 2014. Application for employment under the scheme from eligible dependent should normally be considered up to five years from the date of death or retirement on medical grounds taking place on or after 01^st November, 2014 and decision to be taken on merit in each case (emphasis supplied).”

6. Ex facie, the Petitioner’s claim is founded on a death that occurred on 18^th November, 2004, at a time when the compassionate appointment scheme had already been withdrawn. The later scheme of 2014 does not assist the Petitioner, both because it is prospective and because the employee had crossed the age threshold stipulated therein.

7. The legal position is settled. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right. It is a narrowly tailored exception to the normal rule of public employment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India., SBI v. Anju Jain, (2008) 8 SCC 475. The object of such appointment is limited and specific, namely, to provide immediate succour to the family of a deceased employee so as to enable them to tide over a sudden financial crisis occasioned by the death or incapacitation of the sole breadwinner while in service.² The Supreme Court has consistently held that such appointment can be claimed only within the four corners of the applicable scheme