Delhi HC observes compassionate appointment cannot be an "Inheritance Right"; dismisses plea filed 18 years after father's death
In a firm reiteration of the purpose behind compassionate appointments, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking employment in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) nearly two decades after the death of the petitioner's father, a CISF constable, observing that such appointments cannot be treated as a substitute for regular recruitment or an inherited privilege.
ANI
Aug 05, 2025 14:36 IST
New Delhi [India], August 5 (ANI): In a firm reiteration of the purpose behind compassionate appointments, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking employment in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) nearly two decades after the death of the petitioner's father, a CISF constable, observing that such appointments cannot be treated as a substitute for regular recruitment or an inherited privilege.
A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed, "Compassionate appointment is not a right which continues in perpetuity till purged. It caters to a very specific exigency, which dies with the efflux of time."
The petitioner had approached the Court seeking a direction to the Union of India and other respondents to grant him a job in the CISF on compassionate grounds.
The petitioner's father, who was a CISF constable, died in harness on September 21, 1988. Initially, an application for employment was filed by her widow in 2000, but was rejected as she lacked the necessary qualifications. After a long gap, a fresh application was submitted in 2018--this time for the son, who claimed to have acquired the required qualifications only by then.
The Court, however, found this 18-year delay unjustifiable. It ruled that, "Allowing applications for compassionate appointment more than a decade after the death of a family member would do complete disservice to the very concept of compassionate appointment and would convert it into an alternate mode of recruitment."
Citing Supreme Court precedents including Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India and Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K., the bench stated that compassionate employment is a "humanitarian exception" designed solely to alleviate immediate financial distress following the loss of a government servant. Such schemes, the Court held, are "not a constitutional right," and cannot be claimed endlessly without regard to the immediacy of need. (ANI)
Get the App
