Orissa High Court: ‘Compassionate Appointment is Not an Indefeasible Right’—Rejects Claim Due to Procedural Violations and Lack of Financial Distress
Safiya Malik
The Orissa High Court has dismissed the claim of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment on the grounds of procedural non-compliance and the lapse of considerable time since the death of the original employee. The court, in its judgment, reaffirmed that claims for compassionate employment must be adjudicated strictly in accordance with the rules in force at the time of the employee’s demise, rejecting any reliance on subsequent amendments.
The case arose from a writ petition filed by the dependent family members of a deceased employee of the Odisha Mining Corporation Limited (OMC). The deceased, Pramoda Kumar Bahinipati, was employed as a Light Motor Vehicle driver in the Barbil Region of OMC. He joined service on May 19, 1993, and died on December 18, 1997, due to an accident that occurred in the course of his employment. At the time of his death, he was unmarried, and his family, consisting of his mother (Petitioner No.1) and younger brother (Petitioner No.2), was financially dependent on him.
Following his demise, Petitioner No.1, the deceased’s mother, sought compassionate appointment for Petitioner No.2 under the Orissa Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990. She contended that as the deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family, her younger son should be considered for appointment under the scheme. However, her application remained unaddressed by the authorities, prompting her to file OJC No.13439 of 2000 before the High Court. The court, in its order dated April 19, 2004, directed OMC to dispose of the application in accordance with the law.
Subsequently, OMC rejected the application citing three primary reasons:
- Limitation Period – The application was filed beyond the one-year limitation period stipulated under the relevant rules.
- Non-eligibility under the Family Definition – As per the rules in force at the time of the deceased’s demise, a sibling did not qualify as a family member eligible for compassionate appointment.
- Financial Stability of the Family – The father of the deceased was still in service at OMC and earning an annual salary exceeding the prescribed threshold of Rs.20,000 per annum, thereby disqualifying the family from seeking compassionate employment under the scheme.
Following this rejection, the petitioners filed W.P.(C) No.1903 of 2005, seeking reconsideration of their application. The High Court disposed of this petition on January 24, 2014, allowing the petitioners to file a fresh application with relevant documents, to be considered sympathetically. Pursuant to this order, the petitioners submitted a new application; however, OMC again rejected their claim on March 22, 2014.
During the pendency of these proceedings, Petitioner No.1, the deceased’s mother, passed away, leaving Petitioner No.2, the younger brother, as the sole claimant.
The court examined the relevant rules and legal precedents governing compassionate appointments and reaffirmed that such appointments are not a vested right but rather a discretionary relief granted in cases of financial distress due to the untimely demise of a government employee. The judgment relied on several judgements from the Supreme Court, emphasizing that applications for compassionate appointment must be adjudicated based on the rules in force at the time of the employee’s death.
The court recorded:
“The claim for compassionate appointment must be decided only on the basis of the relevant scheme prevalent on the date of demise of the employee, and subsequent schemes cannot be looked into.”
Relying on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ashish Awasthi (2022) 2 SCC 157, the court held that subsequent amendments to compassionate appointment schemes could not be applied retrospectively. It was observed that the definition of ‘family members’ under the Orissa Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990, at the time of the deceased’s demise did not include a sibling, and the amended rules expanding this definition came into force only on October 1, 1999, nearly two years after the death.
Addressing the petitioner’s contention that his financial dependency on the deceased should warrant appointment, the court stated:
“The brother of the deceased was not included in the definition of ‘family members’ at the time of death, and the amended Rules incorporating such provision came into force only on October 1, 1999.”
Additionally, the court considered the judgement in State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari (2023), which reaffirmed that claims for compassionate appointments should not be entertained after a prolonged lapse of time, as the very purpose of such a scheme is to provide immediate financial relief to the bereaved family. The court noted that prolonged litigation itself demonstrated that the family was not facing acute financial distress, a fundamental criterion for compassionate employment.
Further, the court addressed the petitioners’ argument regarding the deceased’s father’s income and employment at OMC. Rule 2(iii) of the applicable rules clearly stipulated that a family would not qualify for compassionate appointment if any surviving family member was employed in a government or public sector role and earning more than Rs.20,000 per annum. The petitioners did not dispute that their father was employed in OMC until his superannuation on June 30, 2003, and that his income exceeded this threshold.
The court recorded:
“The purpose of compassionate appointment is to alleviate immediate financial distress due to the sudden demise of the breadwinner. When a family member has sustained themselves independently for decades, the claim loses its justification.”
The court further held that compassionate appointment is not a matter of inheritance but an exception to general employment rules meant to provide relief in cases of dire need. Since the petitioner’s family had been able to sustain itself without the appointment for over two decades, the court found no merit in the claim.
On these grounds, the court dismissed the petition, stating:
“In the present case, already much water has flown in the meanwhile after the death of the deceased, and in the meanwhile, around 27 years have elapsed. The petitioner has been able to prosecute his litigation before this Court and different authorities time and again, which itself shows that he is not financially distressed or in penury.”
The court upheld OMC’s rejection of the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment, stating that the decision of the authorities was legally sound and aligned with the governing rules.
Case Title: Subasini Kar and another v. The Orissa Mining Corporation Limited and another
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.21882 of 2014
Bench: Justice Gourishankar Satapathy
[Read/Download order]
