“Delhi HC: Compassionate Appointment an Exception, Not a Right | No Relief for COVID Victim’s Son as Family Received ₹50 Lakh Corpus, ₹40K Monthly Pension”
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that the rejection of a plea for compassionate appointment under the relevant Central Government scheme was not arbitrary or unreasonable. The Court directed that the writ petition challenging this decision be dismissed, finding that the petitioner’s family, which had access to substantial financial resources including corpus funds exceeding ₹50 lakhs and a monthly family pension of over ₹40,000, did not fall within the eligibility criteria warranting compassionate appointment under the stated scheme.
The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking compassionate appointment with the National Bal Bhawan (“NBB”), a government institution where his late father had served as a Junior Sports Instructor (Judo) for 27 years before passing away on 21.05.2021. The cause of death, as recorded in the official death certificate, was Bilateral Severe Covid Pneumonia. At the time of his death, the deceased was 57 years old.
The deceased left behind his wife and two sons, with the petitioner being the younger of the two. Following the death, the petitioner’s mother submitted a representation on 20.07.2021 seeking employment for the petitioner under the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India (“DoPT”).
As part of the process, the mother submitted a proforma on 23.11.2021. This document, which was placed on record, identified only two dependents—the petitioner and his mother. The elder brother was not included. The same form detailed the assets left behind by the deceased, totaling ₹49,64,600, comprising Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCR Gratuity), General Provident Fund (GPF) balance, and leave encashment. Additionally, the family was drawing a monthly family pension of ₹36,416.
Subsequent representations were made, including one dated 16.02.2023 by the petitioner’s mother, asserting that she was indigent. She cited information obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”) that the application was under consideration. Following the withdrawal of a previous writ petition (W.P.(C) 12693/2023), a fresh petition (W.P.(C) 16721/2023) was filed by the petitioner. This was disposed of on 22.12.2023 with a direction for a detailed representation. Such a representation was submitted on 24.01.2024, and subsequently, the respondents passed the impugned rejection order dated 08.08.2024.
In support of the writ petition, counsel for the petitioner cited consolidated instructions from the DoPT dated 16.01.2013. These instructions provide that compassionate appointment is meant for dependent family members of a government servant who dies in harness or retires on medical grounds, leaving the family in penury and without means of livelihood.
The impugned order noted several financial details: over ₹48 lakhs from DCR Gratuity, GPF, and leave encashment; an additional ₹2 lakhs from insurance; and a monthly pension of ₹42,675. Considering these facts, and acknowledging the number of family members as three (the wife and two major sons), the respondents concluded that the family’s financial situation did not warrant compassionate appointment.
The impugned order also referred to prior information from the family that the petitioner’s elder brother was employed in Washington D.C., USA. During oral submissions, counsel for the petitioner stated that the elder brother had returned to India and was unemployed. However, this contradicted averments in the writ petition, which stated that the brother was working independently in the U.S. and did not financially support the family. The petition, filed on 20.02.2025, did not reflect this updated status.
Respondents maintained that the proforma filed by the petitioner’s mother identified only herself and the petitioner as dependents. Regardless of the dispute over the current family structure, the resources available to the family were not contested.
In response to arguments concerning the consideration of benefits under government welfare schemes, counsel for the petitioner relied on Clause 18(c) of the 2013 DoPT instructions. It was argued that such benefits should not be determinative. Furthermore, reliance was placed on a July 2022 RTI response which revealed that five individuals had been appointed in NBB on compassionate grounds. It was alleged that this indicated discriminatory treatment.
The Court found no specific information in the record concerning those other employees, their familial circumstances, or comparative financial status. Moreover, the petitioner’s representation and the writ petition did not raise any claim of unequal treatment with sufficient factual basis.
Ultimately, the matter had already been subject to judicial scrutiny on two prior occasions, and the impugned order followed a third round of representation. The Court noted that such appointments are an exception to competitive recruitment rules, applicable only in narrowly defined scenarios of penury and destitution, which were not satisfied in the present case.
The Court recorded that: “The conclusion of the respondent that, in these circumstances, the family does not suffer from penury or impending destitution, cannot be faulted.”
It further stated: “Clause 18 (c) only states that compassionate appointment ought not to be denied merely on the ground that the family has received benefits under welfare schemes. A balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family is mandated, taking into account its assets and liabilities.”
On the argument regarding the elder brother’s employment status, the Court observed: “It is evident that the petition, which was affirmed only five days ago, i.e. 20.02.2025, does not reflect the position, as submitted orally, and, in fact is inconsistent with the submission now made.”
With respect to the allegation of discriminatory treatment, the Court stated: “A claim for discrimination requires, at the very least, pleading that those employees were in a position similar to that of the petitioner herein.”
On the scope of compassionate appointments, it was recorded: “Such appointment can be granted only under a scheme or policy formulated for this purpose, and in strict conformity with the conditions stipulated therein.”
Upon consideration of the material placed on record and the submissions made, the High Court concluded that there was neither arbitrariness nor unreasonableness in the respondent authority’s decision to reject the request for compassionate appointment. Finding no legal infirmity in the approach adopted by the respondents, the Court declined to grant relief to the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition, along with all pending applications, stood dismissed by order dated 25.02.2025.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Dr. Rohit Samhotra, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. S. Rajappa, Mr. R. Gowrishankar, Ms. G. Dhivyasri, Advocates
Case Title: Yashvardhan v. Union of India & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC: 1310
Case Number: W.P.(C) 2372/2025
Bench: Justice Prateek Jalan
[Read/Download order]
