Compassionate appointment limited to one family member: Punjab and Haryana High Court-OxBig News Network

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that compassionate appointments are restricted to one family member and cannot be extended to another after the termination of the initial appointee’s services. The assertion came as the division bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Lapita Banerji dismissed a letters patent appeal.

The appellant before the court was seeking compassionate appointment following the termination of her brother’s services. He had earlier availed of the benefit upon their father’s demise. Among other things, her counsel contended the appellant’s brother was suffering from mental illness and could not perform the duties, following which his services were terminated.

He further submitted that one member of a family was entitled to compassionate appointment. As such, the appellant was eligible after the termination of her brother’s services and ought to have been appointed on compassionate basis, especially when the family was in financial difficulty and struggling to meet both the ends.

But the court asserted: “Once a family member has availed the benefit of compassionate appointment, the same cannot be granted to another family member after the service of that family member had been terminated.”

The bench reiterated that the primary purpose of compassionate appointments was to mitigate the financial crisis caused by the sudden death of a government employee. “The object is only to tide over the immediate financial crisis which engulfs the family on the death of the sole breadwinner,” the judgment noted.

Rejecting the appellant’s contention that her brother’s employment was terminated due to the illness he was suffering from, the court added: “We do not find any merit in the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the brother of the appellant was suffering from psychotic illness, as no supporting document has been annexed except a prescription from a private doctor.”

Referring to the government policies, the court observed that such appointments were non-transferable and not a vested right. “Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed and offered after a lapse of considerable time and after the crisis is overcome,” it added. The bench upheld the single judge’s order dismissing the appellant’s writ petition. “We do not find any illegality in the order of the single judge, which would warrant interference in letters patent appeal. It stands dismissed accordingly,” the court concluded.