2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 825

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJ
Feko Manjhiyan – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
W.P. (S) No. 4062 of 2025

Compassionate appointment is an exceptional measure intended to provide relief to families facing sudden financial destitution due to the death of an employee in harness. It cannot be claimed after the employee has reached the age of superannuation, regardless of a subsequent declaration of civil death.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Judicial review of administrative decisions - Scope of interference in orders of Tribunals - Courts must not interfere unless there is a patent error or error apparent on the face of record - Evaluation requires determining if error is self-evident or requires complex reasoning. (Paras 27, 29, 30)

(B) Compassionate Appointment - Purpose and Object - Such appointments are an exception to the rule of equal opportunity (Articles 14 and 16) - Intention is to provide immediate financial relief to a family in penury due to the sudden death of a breadwinner in harness - Not a vested right or a scheme to be extended post-superannuation. (Paras 41, 42, 44, 45)

(C) Civil Death - Section 108 of Evidence Act - Declaration of civil death does not equate to automatic entitlement to compassionate appointment if the employee had already reached the age of superannuation - For such purpose, the date of civil death is deemed to be the expiry of seven years from disappearance. (Paras 31, 35, 37, 47)

Facts of the case:
An employee went missing during their service and was untraceable for years. The family obtained a civil court decree declaring the employee's 'civil death'. Following this, the legal heir sought compassionate appointment. The respondent organization rejected the claim on the grounds that the employee had already attained the age of superannuation prior to the declaration, and terminal benefits (excluding gratuity) had been settled. The administrative tribunal upheld the rejection, leading to the current challenge.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that there is no legally enforceable right to compassionate appointment once an employee has passed the age of superannuation, regardless of the date of a subsequent declaration of civil death. The objective of compassionate appointment is to address an immediate financial crisis caused by the loss of a breadwinner while in service; it does not extend to circumstances where the loss of income is due to planned retirement.

Issues: (i) Whether a declaration of civil death entitles the dependent of an employee to compassionate appointment even if the employee would have reached the age of superannuation by the date of such declaration; (ii) The determination of the relevant date for 'civil death' in the absence of a specific finding by the civil court.

Ratio Decidendi: Compassionate appointment is a humanitarian concession strictly limited to providing sustenance to families during an immediate financial crisis following the death of an employee in service. The Court found that the date of civil death is deemed to occur after the expiry of seven years from the date of disappearance. Since the employee had effectively superannuated prior to this threshold, or at the very least, by the time the claim was processed as a post-retirement status, the rationale for compassionate appointment was absent. The tribunal's decision did not suffer from any manifest error or illegality requiring judicial interference.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.