Compassionate Appointments: A Right or Privilege? Supreme Court Decides

The Supreme Court ruled that a compassionate appointment is not a vested right for family members of deceased government employees. Instead, it is designed to provide immediate financial relief. The court denied a man’s plea for a job, citing policy limitations and prolonged delays since his father's death.

The Supreme Court has ruled that compassionate appointments are not a vested right for family members seeking government jobs after the death of an employee. This verdict came as the court denied a petition filed by a man whose police constable father died in duty in 1997.

The bench, which included Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih, emphasized that these appointments are intended to address urgent financial distress immediately following a death, not as a guaranteed right years later.

Despite policy instructions allowing a potential future job for the petitioner, Tinku, after he reached adulthood, his application was rejected due to policy changes in Haryana. The Supreme Court upheld previous rulings, denying his appointment claim but suggested his mother apply for a one-time ex-gratia payment.

(With inputs from agencies.)