Rajasthan High Court Orders 20K Monthly Salary Deduction From Widow Appointed On Compassionate Grounds For Deserting Dependent In-Laws
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Farjand Ali directed the State authorities to deduct a portion of the salary of a widow employed on compassionate grounds and deposit it into the account of her dependent father-in-law, after finding that she had left her matrimonial home and failed to care for her in-laws soon after her husband’s death. The Court observed that compassionate appointment is not granted in an individual capacity but as a measure to support the entire family dependent on the deceased employee. It held that such an appointment carries both moral and legal responsibilities towards other surviving dependents, and the beneficiary cannot continue to enjoy its benefits while disregarding those obligations.
The matter arises from a writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking directions to the authorities of the electricity distribution corporation to ensure that the widow of a deceased employee fulfilled her alleged obligation to maintain the dependent parent of the deceased. The deceased employee, a Technical Assistant, passed away on 15.09.2015. Following his death, the department issued letters dated 21.09.2015 and 26.09.2015 asking the dependent father to apply for compassionate appointment. Before this process concluded, the widow applied for compassionate appointment in her own name. The petitioner recommended that the appointment be given to her instead of himself.
Subsequently, the petitioner informed the authorities through a letter dated 15.10.2015 that the widow had left the matrimonial home within eighteen days of her husband’s death and was living with her parents. An inquiry by the Chairman, Municipal Board, confirmed that the petitioner was aged, had no income, and was in financial hardship. The widow was later appointed as a Lower Division Clerk on 11.03.2016, supported by an affidavit dated 19.10.2015 declaring she resided with and would maintain her in-laws. The petitioner alleged this affidavit was false and that she had failed to maintain him despite receiving part of the deceased employee’s financial benefits.
The petitioner submitted representations dated 03.06.2017 and 07.12.2017 requesting that a portion of her salary be deposited into his account. He argued that her compassionate appointment violated Rule 10(2) of the 1996 Rules. The respondents contended that she was legally appointed, had initially supported the family, later faced harassment, and eventually remarried, relieving her of any legal obligation to maintain her former in-laws. They also stated that departmental regulations permitted review of her appointment if dependents were neglected.
The Court recorded that the case “is a poignant example of how the very benevolent object… has been rendered nugatory by the subsequent conduct of the beneficiary.” It stated that the petitioner and his wife “were both financially dependent upon their late son and were left destitute after his untimely demise,” and that the widow “left her matrimonial home… thereby severing her physical and emotional connection with the petitioner.”
The Court observed that the widow obtained compassionate appointment after submitting an affidavit in which “she solemnly undertook assurances that she would reside with and maintain her deceased husband’s parents… and that she would take full responsibility for their welfare.” It stated that this assurance was a “material and foundational condition” for granting the appointment.
The judgment recorded: “Compassionate appointment is not a vested right but an act of grace,” meant to alleviate “the financial hardship of the family of the deceased.” It added that the widow “cannot now resile from the promise that formed the very substratum of the benefit conferred upon her,” and allowing her to do so “would amount to permitting a fraud upon the compassionate scheme.”
It further stated that after securing employment and receiving a substantial share of financial benefits, the widow “has abandoned her in-laws and is living elsewhere, reportedly maintaining marital companionship with another person,” which it considered “wholly antithetical to equity, conscience, and the solemn undertaking voluntarily made by her.”
The Court recorded that the expression “family” in the scheme “necessarily includes all those who were dependent upon the deceased employee,” and that compassionate appointment is conferred upon a member “as a representative of the entire family.” It observed that the widow’s appointment “cannot be viewed as a personal entitlement earned through merit or competitive process,” but rather as a “consequence of an unfortunate eventuality.”
The Court finally stated that it could not permit her “to enjoy the fruits of compassionate employment while neglecting those whose welfare formed the basis of such employment.”
The Court directed that “from 01.11.2025 onwards, the respondent-department shall ensure deduction of ₹20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) per month from the salary of respondent No.4, to be credited directly into the bank account of the petitioner towards his maintenance.” It ordered that this arrangement “shall continue till his lifetime or until further orders of the competent authority.” The Court disposed of the writ petition “with these observations and directions.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Priyanshu Gopa, Mr. Shreyansh Ramdev
For the Respondents: Mr. Mrigraj Singh Rathore, Mr. Rajesh Punia, Mr. Madan Lal
Case Title: Bhagwan Singh v. Superintending Engineer & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JD:45818
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1149/2018
Bench: Justice Farjand Ali
