No Second Claim on Compassionate Appointments: A New Judicial Precedent
1. Introduction
This commentary examines the recent decision by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case Sobia Mujib v. State of Punjab and Others (LPA-2690-2024), decided on December 10, 2024. The matter revolved around the appellant’s request for appointment on compassionate grounds, subsequent to her brother’s termination from service—despite the brother having originally been appointed in place of their late father. The Court was called upon to clarify whether a second compassionate appointment could be granted to another member of the same family once the initial compassionate appointment had already been exercised.
The key issue before the Court was the applicability of government instructions and principles from prior Supreme Court rulings on compassionate appointments. Specifically, the Court examined whether transferring or granting a fresh appointment on compassionate grounds was permissible under the relevant policy and constitutional framework.
2. Summary of the Judgment
The Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal, upholding the Single Judge’s order rejecting the appellant’s plea for a second compassionate appointment. The Court highlighted that compassionate appointments serve as an exception to the normal rules of public employment. Once one family member has secured such an appointment, another cannot seek the same relief after the termination of the first recipient’s service. The decision underscored that the primary objective of compassionate appointments is to alleviate the immediate financial distress of the bereaved family, and they are not intended to be used multiple times by subsequent members of the same family.
3. Analysis
(a) Precedents Cited
In reaching its conclusion, the Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State Of Haryana, 1994 (4) SCC 138, wherein the apex Court laid down the foundational principles governing compassionate appointments. That ruling clarifies that:
- Compassionate appointment is intended only to provide immediate relief to the family upon the death of the government servant.
- It is an exception to the standard rule of appointment based on merit and open competition under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
- Compassionate appointments must be granted promptly; delays can nullify the primary objective of mitigating sudden financial hardship.
Further references to policy instructions dated November 21, 2002, from the Government of Punjab were brought to the Court’s attention. Those instructions clearly stipulate that once a family member receives a compassionate appointment, it “cannot be transferred to any other person.”
(b) Legal Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the compassionate appointment to the appellant’s brother concluded the family’s right to avail the benefit under the compassionate scheme. The father’s death in harness in March 2012 had triggered the family’s claim, which was met when the brother was appointed as a Peon in April 2013. His subsequent termination for absenteeism and misconduct did not revive or re-create a right in favor of the appellant to claim a fresh compassionate appointment.
The Court mapped its reasoning onto core constitutional principles, emphasizing that compassionate appointments cannot override the constitutional mandate of equal opportunity for public employment. Since the objective is strictly to help the family “tide over” immediate hardship occasioned by the loss of the breadwinner, once that aim is supposedly met (even if eventually unfulfilled due to the brother’s own failings), the family cannot seek another appointment.
(c) Impact
This decision is likely to influence similar claims wherein a previously appointed family member fails to perform or is terminated from service. The Court’s stance clarifies that such terminations do not restore any automatic right to another family member to demand compassionate employment.
Future litigants must recognize that claims for compassionate appointment are subject to strict conditions and time constraints. Likewise, employers—particularly government departments—now have a clear precedent to refuse repeated or “second-generation” compassionate appointments.
4. Complex Concepts Simplified
Compassionate Appointment: It is a special provision enabling a dependent of a deceased government employee to be appointed to a government job without going through the open competitive process, solely to mitigate immediate financial distress of the employee’s family.
Terminated Service: If the person who was given the compassionate appointment is removed or terminated from service due to misconduct or inability to perform, it does not recreate a new right for another family member to step into that role. The appointment is considered exhausted, reflecting that this provision cannot be leveraged multiple times.
Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution: These articles ensure equality before the law (Article 14) and equality of opportunity in matters of public employment (Article 16). Compassionate appointments are an exception to these rules, allowed only under very specific circumstances.
5. Conclusion
In Sobia Mujib v. State of Punjab and Others, the Punjab & Haryana High Court reinforced the principle that compassionate appointments are singular, non-transferable, and must be used only once to address the immediate financial crisis faced by the family. Once a relative has been appointed on compassionate grounds, a subsequent request by another relative—even if the first appointee’s service is terminated—will not be entertained. This decision ensures that the core purpose of compassionate employment is preserved: providing timely and exceptional relief to families in distress, rather than offering recurring appointments outside the regular merit-based public employment framework.
The ruling aligns with established Supreme Court jurisprudence and clarifies the boundaries of compassionate appointment policies. It stands as a significant reminder of the limited scope of such appointments and the impossibility of reviving them upon a subsequent misfortune or termination of the first beneficiary.
Comments