Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Orissa Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Chittaranjan Dash dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by the Union authorities and affirmed the direction for compassionate appointment of a disabled CRPF personnel’s wife as Head Constable. Opening the judgment with George Orwell’s observation: People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to suffer violence on their behalf,” the Bench agreed that the State failed to extend timely support to a family affected by combat-related disability. The dispute arose after the authorities rejected the dependent spouse’s claim and instead offered a lower post, despite her husband having suffered permanent disability in a terrorist bomb blast while on active duty. Upholding the Single Judge’s order, the Court directed implementation of the appointment within a fixed timeline, reiterating that such claims must be handled with sensitivity rather than administrative rigidity.

The appeal arose from a challenge by the Union of India and its officials to an order granting compassionate appointment to the dependent spouse of a CRPF personnel who had suffered permanent physical disability due to a terrorist bomb blast during combat duty in Srinagar on 23.01.2007. Following medical invalidation, the personnel was discharged from service on 07.03.2014. His wife, being a dependent, applied for compassionate appointment under the applicable CRPF scheme. The request was rejected by an administrative order dated 18.06.2020. Aggrieved, the couple approached the High Court through a writ petition, which was allowed by a Single Judge on 21.10.2024.

Also Read: Supreme Court Urges Govts To Digitize Land Records Using Tamper-Proof Technology Like Blockchain

The Court observed that “A society, which does not hold the Defence Personnel in high esteem, will do disservice to itself, inasmuch as its own security will be at stake, if those who guard it are not regarded. These personnel protect borders of the country with a belief that if something wrong happens to their life or limb, the State & Civil Society would come forward for rescue by providing some succour to their families. This belief that prompts them to do great sacrifice should not be shaken. Therefore, the claim for compassionate appointment in such special cases have to be processed with humane approach and not in a bureaucratic manner.”

On the distinction between civil services and combatant forces, the Court stated that “the problems of a family, whose member is medically incapacitated owing to occupational hazards in the employment, at times can be as harsh as in the case of death in harness.” Referring to the nature of service in forces like CRPF, it observed that “It does not require any research to know that the personnel of Combatant Forces like the Defence, BSF, ITBP, CRPF, etc. be they employed in the frontiers of the country or interior may have to sacrifice their lives or limbs for securing the countrymen. Thus, theirs is truly a yeomen service. They deserve more respect and much deference.”

On compassionate appointment matters involving the Armed Forces operate in a distinct context, and related claims should be examined with a liberal approach, the Bench recorded that “The provisions of such a Scheme have to be liberally construed in favour of the claimant, unlike in civil sectors of employment. The decision to deny the post of head Constable although the post of Constable was offered, did not reflect such a liberal approach. Thus, that itself constituted an error apparent on the face of the record. We are not interpreting the immutable loss of physics but construing man made law for humans and therefore, humane elements cannot be kept at a bay while enforcing socio-welfare policy. Otherwise, it will not be a “living law of the people”, to borrow the words of Eugen Ehrlich an Austrian jurist (1862-1922).”

Addressing the insistence on the failure of a written test, the Bench recorded that “The alleged failure in the said Test cannot be a stumbling block to the consideration of her claim, for compassionate appointment, when compelling her to write the Written Test itself was incompetent. If the post of Head Constable is also in the same cadre, as the post of Constable, and the Scheme envisages all these posts for the purpose of compassionate appointment, it is un-understandable as to how only for the post of Head Constable the written test was insisted upon by the Appellants.”

The Court further observed: “The authorities that be, should give an impression to the members of the Combating Forces that in the event of death or disability, there would be something for the dependents to fall back upon. Otherwise, the morale of Combatants would be badly affected leading to their thinking about the future of their families in the case of death or disablement, than concentrating on the due discharge of their combat duties, for securing our frontiers or protecting the countrymen.”

Also Read: Orissa High Court Denies Bail To Five, Grants One Under Section 483 BNSS In Spurious Liquor Death Case

The Court held that “this appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be rejected and accordingly it is. The Appellants are directed to implement the impugned order of learned Single Judge within eight (8) weeks, and report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court within one week next following.”

With respect to costs, the Bench recorded that the case was fit for levy of exemplary costs of Rs.50,000/-, but clarified that “we refrain from levying any with the hope that at least now the compassionate appointment to the post of Head Constable, in terms of impugned order, shall be given. If delay is brooked, the levy takes place, without any further order,” and that such costs “may be recovered from the erring officials of the department.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellants: Mr. Biswajit Maharana, Senior Panel Counsel
For the Respondents: M/s Sameer Kumar Das, P.K. Behera, Niranjan Lenka, Advocates

Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Sri Ajit Kumar Khuntia & Anr.

Case Number: W.A. No. 1220 of 2025

Bench: Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad, Justice Chittaranjan Dash