The Supreme Court in Suneel Kumar v/s State of UP observed that "suitable employment" for compassionate appointment must be understood with reference to the post held by the deceased employee.
In this case, an application came to be made by the appellant for being appointed under Rule 5 of The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. It has been filed by the deceased’s son who was a graduate with computer literacy and was offered a post of Sweeper (the post which was held by his late father) as a compassionate appointment. He rejected this offer and filed a representation seeking appointment as Gram Panchayat Officer (Class III post) which was rejected.
The Court observed that “ …The father of the appellant was working as a Sweeper borne
in Class-IV post. We have noticed the view taken by this Court in Premlata (supra). In other words, the law as declared is to the effect that the words "suitable employment" in Rule 5 must be understood with reference to the post held by the deceased employee. The superior qualification held by a dependent cannot determine the scope of the words "suitable employment".
However, partly allowing the appeal the Court held that “we must now consider the case of the appellant for appointment as a Sweeper at least. It may be true that the appellant may, on the advice given, have been persuaded to litigate the matter and persevere in his claim for a specific post. It may be true that there were rounds of litigation but as we have already noticed bearing in mind the date of the death of the employee, the claim of the appellant may not be said to be afflicted with such delay as should deprive him and the family of the deceased of relief of the appellant being appointed as a Sweeper, a right which is given under the statutory Rule.”