1. State argued family not indigent due to employed sibling; respondent argued sibling separated and no bar on third heir. (Para 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 86221
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT – Appellant
Versus
B ARUNPRAGADHEESH – Respondent
WA No. 2778 of 2023 | C.M.P.No.23311 of 2023
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Y. Kavitha
For the Respondents: P. Ganesh, M. Praveen Kumar
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Y. Kavitha
For the Respondents: P. Ganesh, M. Praveen Kumar
Compassionate appointment is a concession, not a right; it must be strictly limited to families in indigent circumstances, else it violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 16 and 335 - Compassionate appointment - Scheme of compassionate appointment is a concession and not a constitutional right - It must be implemented strictly in accordance with its terms and conditions - The object is to mitigate the circumstances arising out of sudden death of an employee, and only families in indigent circumstances are eligible - If the family is able to lead their livelihood without the deceased’s income, they are not entitled - Dilution of this criteria defeats the scheme and violates the constitutional mandate of equal opportunity in public employment - Article 335 requires maintenance of efficiency of administration even while providing reservations; similarly, compassionate appointments must not lead to inefficiency or deprive meritorious candidates, including SC/ST aspirants. (Paras 9-18)
(B) Compassionate appointment - Factors for eligibility - Indigent circumstances of the family is paramount - Employment of another family member (e.g., elder brother) is relevant evidence that the family is not in indigent circumstances - Delay in processing application does not confer eligibility if the family’s financial condition has improved over time - Courts must not act on misplaced sympathy and must strike a balance between the scheme’s objective and constitutional rights of other job seekers. (Paras 11, 15, 17, 19)
Facts of the case:
The respondent’s father, a B.T. Assistant in a Government Higher Secondary School, died on 16.10.2011. The respondent, the third legal heir, applied for compassionate appointment in January 2012. The competent authority rejected the application on the ground that the respondent’s elder brother was employed in the Indian Bank, Chennai, and the family was not in indigent circumstances. An appeal was also rejected. The writ petition challenging the rejection was allowed by the Single Judge on 01.08.2022. The State appealed.
Findings of Court:
The Division Bench set aside the Single Judge’s order, holding that the competent authority had correctly assessed the family’s situation. The employment of the elder brother and the lack of indigent circumstances justified the rejection. The delay in processing the application (rejection in 2020) did not create a right, as any penurious circumstances, if they existed, would have vanished over time. The court emphasised that compassionate appointment is a concession, not a right, and must be strictly confined to deserving families to avoid infringing the constitutional guarantee of equal opportunity in public employment.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent was eligible for compassionate appointment when his elder brother was employed and the family was not in indigent circumstances? 2. Whether the scheme of compassionate appointment is consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution? 3. Whether the delay in processing the application can be held against the respondent?
Ratio Decidendi: Compassionate appointment is a non-constitutional, concessional scheme. Its sole purpose is to relieve the family from penury caused by the sudden death of the breadwinner. If the family has an earning member (e.g., an employed elder brother) and is not in indigent circumstances, the claim must be rejected. Courts should not extend the scheme on misplaced sympathy, as doing so would violate the constitutional mandate of equal employment opportunity and social justice, and would deprive meritorious candidates of their right to public employment. Result : Writ appeal allowed. The order dated 01.08.2022 passed in W.P.No.26139 of 2021 is set aside. No costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- service law
- constitutional law
Table of Contents
2. Writ appeal allowed; writ order granting compassionate appointment set aside. No costs. (Para 20 )
3. Is compassionate appointment a constitutional right?
No, it is a concession and cannot be claimed as an absolute right. (Para 9 )
4. What is the primary condition for eligibility under compassionate appointment?
The family must be in indigent circumstances, unable to maintain itself without the deceased breadwinner's income. (Para 10 , 11 )
5. Does the compassionate appointment scheme violate the constitutional guarantee of equal opportunity?
Yes, it violates Articles 14 and 16 by bypassing merit and reservation, but it is permissible as a restricted concession. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )
6. How should courts evaluate compassionate appointment claims?
Courts must assess penurious circumstances and not be swayed by sympathy; delay in processing may indicate vanished need. (Para 17 , 19 )
JUDGEMENT
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)
Under assail is the writ order dated 01.08.2022 passed in W.P.No.26139 of 2022.
2. The Sate preferred the present writ appeal mainly on the ground that the respondent is ineligible for the compassionate appointment since his elder brother is working in the Indian Bank, Royapettah Branch, Chennai and the family is not in indigent circumstances.
3. The facts, in brief, are that the father of the writ petitioner was Late Balasubramanian, who was employed as B.T. Assistant in the Government Higher Secondary School, Vilandai, Ariyalur District and died on 16.10.2011, while he was in service. The respondent is the third legal heir of the deceased employee and submitted his application seeking compassionate appointment in January 2012. The said application was rejected mainly on the ground that the second legal heir of the deceased employee and the elder brother of the respondent herein was employed in the Indian Bank, Royapettah Branch, Chennai and further, the family was not in indigent circumstances. Consequently, the application was rejected. The appeal preferred before the Appellate Authority was also rejected. Thus, the writ petition came to be instituted.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellants would contend that the situation of the family was assessed by the competent authority and that they found that the elder brother of the appellant is employed in the Indian Bank, Royapettah Brnach, Chennai and the family is not in indigent circumstances. Thus, the claim of the respondent was rejected.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent would oppose by stating that the elder brother of the respondent has been residing separately and has not been maintaining the family since 2015. That apart, there is no prohibition under the scheme of compassionate appointment to provide appointment to the third legal heir of the deceased employee. Thus, the reasons stated by the competent authorities are untenable.
6. The writ Court considered these aspects and granted the relief. The delay cannot be held against the respondent since the application was filed within a period of three years and the respondent was pursuing the application, but the order of rejection was passed in the year 2020. Thus, the delay cannot be attributed against the respondent.
7. This Court has considered the rival submissions made between the parties to the lis on hand.
8. The wider constitutional ramifications and implications of the special scheme of compassionate appointment require consideration by this Court.
9. The scheme of compassionate appointment is a concession and not a constitutional scheme of appointment. Compassion can never be claimed as an absolute right. Thus, the scheme is to be implemented scrupulously in terms and conditions stipulated. Let us examine the effects and ill-effects of the non-constitutional, concessional scheme of appointments like compassionate appointments.
10. The effect of compassionate appointment in one angle, is that the family, who lost the breadwinner is able to secure a job under the compassionate appointment and lead their livelihood peacefully. The very object of the scheme is to mitigate the circumstances arising out of sudden death of an employee. Therefore, the relevant consideration would be that the family should not be in a position to maintain themselves and the income of the breadwinner alone was the protector of the family.
11. If the family is able to lead their livelihood in the absence of the income earned by the breadwinner, then such family may not be eligible to secure employment on compassionate grounds. If this criteria is diluted, then the very scheme of compassionate appointment and its objectives are defeated. This is exactly the reason why extra-constitutional schemes of special appointments are given in a restricted manner so as to ensure only deserving families get the benefits and the scheme is not misused or abused so as to de
