Holding

Compassionate employment is permissible only in Class III and IV posts when the deceased employee's family is in penury, and it is not a vested right nor dependent on the qualifications of the applicant.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined two Special Leave Petitions challenging a State Government's instruction that allowed compassionate appointments in a Class II post to a dependent of a deceased employee. The Court held that compassionate employment is a humanitarian measure intended solely to relieve the financial destitution of a deceased employee's family and may be granted only in the lowest non‑manual and manual posts (Class III and IV) when the family is in penury. The mere death of an employee does not automatically entitle the family to a job; the authority must assess the family's financial condition. Qualifications of the dependent or the post previously held by the deceased are irrelevant, and compassionate employment is not a vested right and must be provided within a reasonable period prescribed by the rules. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, laying down guidelines that compassionate appointments must be made only under the applicable rules or executive instructions and not on an ad‑hoc basis.

Issues considered

What considerations should guide appointment in public service on compassionate grounds?
Which categories of posts may be offered on compassionate grounds?
Is the qualification of the dependent or the post held by the deceased relevant for compassionate employment?
Is compassionate employment a vested right that can be claimed at any time?
Can compassionate appointments be made beyond the scope of the rules or by individual functionaries?

Subjects

compassionate employmentpublic service appointmentClass IIIClass IVfinancial destitutionservice lawhumanitarian considerationgovernment rulesvested right

Judgment

,,
\
UMESH KUMAR NAGPAL ETC. A
v.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

MAY 4, 1994

[P.B. SWANT AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] B

Service Law : Appointment to Public Service-On compassionate
grounds-Considerations to be taken into account-Categories of posts to
which such appointments could be made-Guidelines issued.
c
In these two appeals preferred against the decision of the High
Court, the question that arose was as regards the considerations which
should guide while giving appointment in public service on compassionate
grounds.

Dismissing the appeals and laying down guidelines for appointment D
on compassionate grounds, this court

HELD : 1.1. Out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into
account the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the
family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in E
the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the
deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of
granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over
sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post
much less a post held by the deceased. [895-H-896-A)
• F
1.2. Mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family
to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority
concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the
deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of
employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to G
be offered to the eligible member of the family. [896-B]

1.3. The posts in Class-III and Class IV are the lowest posts in
non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered
on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the
financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision H
893
894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] 3 S.C.R.

A of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is
justifiable and vaUd since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treat-
ment given to such dependent of the deceased employee in such posts had
a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz., relief against
destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the
public authorities for the purpose. As against the destitute family of the
B deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more
destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the
deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and
the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the
family engendered by the erstwhile employments which are suddenly up·
C turned. [896-C-D-E]

2. Some Governments and public authorities have been offering
compassionate employment sometimes as a matter of course irrespective
of the financial condition of the family of the deceased and sometimes even
in posts above Classes Ill and IV. That is legally impermissible. [896-F-G]
D
Sushma Gosain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1989) 4 SLR 327,
explained.

3. In the present case, the High Court bas rightly pointed out that
the State Government's instructions in question did not justify compas-
E
sionate employment in Class II posts. The Respondent State Government
had made at least one exception and provided compassionate employment
in Class II post on the specious ground that the person concerned had
technical qualifications such as M.B.B.S., B.E., B.Tech. etc. Such exception,
is illegal since it is contrary to the object of making exception to the general
F rule. The only ground which can justify compassionate employment is the
penurious condition of the deceased's family. Neither the qualifications of
his dependent nor the post which he held is relevant. [897-B-C]

4. If the dependent of the deceased-employee finds it below his
dignity to accept the post offered, he is free not to do so. The post is not
G
offered to cater to his status but to see the family through the economic
calamity. [897-H-898-A]

5. Compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a
reasonable period which n1ust be specified in the rules. The consideration
H for such employinent is not a vested right which can be exercised at any
U.K.NAGPAL v. STATEOFHARYANA[SAWANT,J.] 895

time in future. [898-B] A
6. The provisions for compassionate employment have necessarily to
be made by the rules or by the executive instructions issued by the
Government or the public authority concerned. The employment cannot be
offered by an individual functionary on an ad hoc Basis. [898-C]
B
CTVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 10504 of 1993 etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.92 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in L.P. A. No. 734 of 1992.
c
Amarendran Sharan for the Petitioner.

Ms. lndu Malhotra for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

.. '
)
SAWANT, J. These two petitions are directed against the decision
dated 18th December, 1992 of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana
High C~urt in Letters Patent Appeal No. 734 of 1992 and C.W.P. No. 6357
D

of 1992. Since they raise a point of considerable importance, it has become
necessary to deliver a short judgment while dismissing them at the admis-
• sion stage.
E

The question relates to the considerations which should guide while
giving appointment in public services on compassionate ground. It appears
that there has been deal of obfuscation on the the issue. As a rule,
appointment in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of F
open i~vitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment
nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor
the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure of relax
the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this
general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some
exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain G
contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependents of an
employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any
means of livelihood. In such causes, out of pure humanitarian consideration
taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is
provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision H
896 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 3 S.C.R.

A is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the depend- ..(
ents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole
object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family
to tide over the sudden crises. The object is not to give a member of such
family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is
further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitled his family
B to such source of livelihood. The Government of the public authority
concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the
deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of
employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to
be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Class-lll and
C IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence
they alone can be offered on compassionate ground, the object being to
relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the
emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making
an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory.
D The favourable treatment given to such dependent of the deceased
employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be '
achieved, viz., relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or
required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be
remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the
deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more
E destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the
deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and
the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the
family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly up-
turned.
F
Unmindful of this legal poSitton, some Governments and public
authorities have been offering compassionate employment sometimes as a
matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the
deceased and sometimes even in posts above Classes III and IV. That is
legally impermissible.
G
It is for these reasons that we have not been in a position to
apl"'ciate judgments of some of the High Courts which have justified and
even' directed compassionate employment either as a matter of course or
imposts above Classes Ill and IV. We are also dismayed to find that the
H decision of the Court in Sushma Gosain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.,
U.K NAGPAL v. STATEOFHARYANA[SAWANT,J.J 897

(1989) 4 SLR 327 has been misinterpreted to the point of distortion. The A
\. decision does not justify compassionate employment either as a matter of
course or in employment in posts above Ch.sses III and IV. In the present
case, the High Court has rightly pointed out that the State Government's
instructions in question did not justify compassionate employment in Class
II posts. However, it appears from the judgment that the State Government
B
had made at least one exception and provided compassionate employment
in Class II post on the specious ground that the person concerned had
•j technical qualifications such as M.B.B.S., B.E., B.Tech etc. Such exception,
as pointed out above, is illegal since it is contrary to the object of making
exception to the general rule. The only ground which can justify compas-
sionate employment is the penurious condition of the deceased's family.
c
Neither the qualifications of his dependent nor the post which he held is
relevant. It is for this reason that we are unable to understand the following
observations of the High Court in the impugned judgment :

11
We are of the view that the extra-ordinary situations require D
, ••••••••••

extraordinary remedies and it is open to the government in real
~

hard cases to deviate from the letter and spirit of the instructions
t-
and to provide relief in cases where it is so warranted. To hold as
a matter of law that the Government cannot deviate even minutely
from the policy of providing appointment only against Class III E
<J
and Class IV posts, be to ignore the reality of life these days. It
would be ridiculous to except that a dependant of a deceased
Class I Officer, should be offered appointment against a Class III
or IV post. While we leave it to the government to exercise its
discretion judiciously in making appointments to Class I or II posts
4' on compassionate grounds,· yet a word of caution needs to be F
struck. It is to be noted that such appointments should be ordered
' in the rarest of rare cases, and in very exceptional circumstances.
As a matter of fact, we would recommend that the government
should frame a policy even for such appointments. 11
G
It is obvious from the above observations that the High Court endor-
se& the policy of the State Government to make compassionate appoint-
ment in posts equivalent to. the posts held by the deceased-employees and
above Classes III and JV. It is unnecessary to reiterate that these observa-
lions are contrary to law. If the dependant of the deceased-employee finds H
i \

898 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 3 S.C.R.

A it below his dignity to accept the post offered, he is free not to do so. The
post is not offered to cater to his status but to see the family through the -i
economic calamity.

For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be
granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the
B rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which
can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family
to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the
sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and
offered whether the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.
c It is needless to emphasise that the provisions for compassionate
employment necessarily to be made by the rules or by the executive
instructions issued by the Government or the public authority concerned.
The employment cannot be offered by an individual functionary on an ad
hoc basis.
D
For the reasons given above, we dismiss the special leave petitions.

G.N. Petitions dismissed.
'
-

.
'