Kiran Raj

Jharkhand High Court in its recent judgement stated that compassionate appointments are not a vested right and cannot be claimed indefinitely after the demise of an employee. The case pertained to an appeal challenging the rejection of a compassionate appointment request on grounds of undue delay and the nature of acquittal from criminal charges.

The appellant, wife of a deceased employee of a coal mining company, sought a compassionate appointment following her husband's death in 2011. The deceased was employed as a loader at Kuju Colliery, Ramgarh, under the respondent company. Following his demise, the appellant was accused in a criminal case related to his murder and remained in judicial custody for a period.

According to the case records, the appellant was charged under Sections 302/34 IPC based on a First Information Report (FIR) filed by the deceased’s brother. The prosecution claimed that the appellant was involved in a conspiracy that led to the death of her husband. The trial court, however, found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was not conclusive. The sole eyewitness turned hostile, and circumstantial evidence was deemed insufficient to sustain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the trial court acquitted the appellant in 2018 on grounds of "lack of evidence and benefit of doubt."

After her release, the appellant pursued her claim for compassionate appointment, stating that she had originally applied for such consideration as early as 2012 while still in custody. Further representations were made in 2015, 2016, 2018, and 2019. She maintained that her acquittal should allow her reinstatement into the employment consideration process. However, in 2023, the employer formally rejected her request, citing the lapse of over a decade since the employee’s demise and the non-honourable nature of her acquittal.

The court upheld the employer's decision, stating that the fundamental purpose of compassionate appointments is to provide immediate relief to the family of a deceased employee. It cited judicial precedents affirming that such employment is an exception to the general recruitment process and must be granted within a reasonable timeframe following the employee’s death.

"The object underlying compassionate employment is to enable the family of a deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of the bread-earner, and this object does not survive indefinitely."

The court extensively referred to the Supreme Court's decision in State of W.B. vs. Debabrata Tiwari (2023 SCC OnLine SC 219), wherein it was established that a significant lapse of time eliminates the urgency that underpins compassionate appointment. The judgment noted:

"In a case where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the part of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. Further, the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased may have changed for the better since the time of the death of the government employee. In such circumstances, Courts or other relevant authorities are to be guided by the fact that for such prolonged period of delay, the family of the deceased was able to sustain themselves, most probably by availing gainful employment from some other source."

Addressing the issue of the appellant’s acquittal, the court observed that a non-honourable acquittal—one granted on the basis of "benefit of doubt" rather than clear exoneration—could still be a relevant consideration for the employer. The employer argued that the circumstances of the acquittal created a reasonable basis for denial of employment. The court recorded:

"Since the appellant's acquittal was not an honourable acquittal, she was not entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds."

The court further remarked that the employer had acted within its discretion in declining the appellant's request, especially given the nature of her acquittal and the considerable lapse of time since the employee’s death.

The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the single-judge bench that had upheld the employer’s rejection. It concluded that the rejection did not suffer from any legal infirmity and aligned with established judicial precedents. The court observed that compassionate appointment is a scheme designed to address immediate economic distress rather than a hereditary employment right. Accordingly, the long delay in seeking relief rendered the claim untenable.

Case Title: Basanti Devi vs. Central Coalfields Limited & Ors.
Case Number: L.P.A. No. 49 of 2024
Bench: Chief Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan

[Read/Download order]