Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice PK Mishra has summarized the principles relating to compassionate appointment. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G. K (2025).  

What was the Background of Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G. K Case?   

• A Canara Bank employee (father of Ajithkumar G.K.) passed away on 20th December 2001 while in service, with 4 months remaining before his retirement. 
• At the time of death, Canara Bank had a compassionate appointment scheme from 1993 in force. 
• Within a month of his father's death, defendant applied on 15th January 2002 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. 
• On 30th October 2002, the Deputy General Manager rejected his application citing two reasons:  
  • His mother was receiving family pension of Rs. 4,367.92. 
  • He was overaged for the post of "Prob. Peon". 
• The scheme had an age limit of 26 years for both clerical and sub-staff positions, with provision for up to 5 years relaxation. The defendant was 26 years and 8 months old. 
• The defendant requested reconsideration on 7th January 2003, which was rejected on 20th January 2003. 
• His mother then made another request on 4th February 2003, citing that her deceased husband had served for over 24 years. This was also rejected on 18th February 2003. 
• During the pending litigation, Canara Bank introduced a new scheme in 2005 that discontinued the 1993 policy of compassionate appointments and instead provided for lumpsum ex-gratia payment. 
• The deceased employee's family situation at the time was:  
  • Three daughters who were already married and settled. 
  • Wife (mother) receiving family pension. 
  • One unmarried son (Ajithkumar). 
  • Family owned their house. 
  • Received terminal benefits of Rs. 3.09 lakhs (net after liabilities). 
  • Last drawn net salary of deceased was Rs. 9,772. 
• High Court (Single Judge Bench) - First Round: 
  • Found that the Deputy General Manager's order rejecting a compassionate appointment was not in accordance with the 1993 scheme. 
  • Held that the bank failed to properly consider its power to relax age requirements under paragraph 5.1. 
  • Directed the bank to reconsider Ajithkumar's case taking into account:  
  • The 1993 scheme provisions. 
• High Court (Single Judge Bench) - Second Round: 
  • Set aside the Managing Director's order rejecting the application. 
  • Directed Canara Bank to consider Ajithkumar for appointment under the 1993 scheme in sub-staff cadre within 2 months. 
  • Ordered payment of Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation for the bank's reluctance in giving timely compassionate appointment. 
• High Court (Division Bench): 
  • Dismissed the bank's appeal. 
  • Ordered additional exemplary costs of Rs. 5 lakhs. 
  • Expressed astonishment at how the bank handled Ajithkumar's claim. 
  • Directed appointment in sub-staff category within one month. 
  • Found it "audacious" that the bank passed an order conflicting with Supreme Court's decision in M. Mahesh Kumar case. 
• Criticized the bank for:  
  • Brushing aside age relaxation consideration. 
  • Using family pension as grounds for rejection despite it being held irrelevant. 
  • Rejecting the claim based on family pension and retirement benefits. 
  • This case has gone through multiple rounds of litigation from 2003 to 2025, moving through various courts and appeals. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court made the following observations: 
  • Disagreed with High Court's reliance on Canara Bank v. M Mahesh Kumar case (2015). 
  • Found the MD & CEO's order refusing compassionate appointment was justified. 
  • Held that Division Bench shouldn't have overlooked suitability criteria while directing appointments. 
  • Set aside both Single Judge and Division Bench orders. 
  • Using Article 142 powers as per the Constitution of India, 1950, directed:  
    • Bank to pay Rs. 2.5 lakhs lumpsum to the defendant within 2 months. 
    • This would be in addition to Rs. 50,000 already paid. 
  • Made observations about:  
  • The necessity to examine financial conditions. 
  • The relevance of terminal benefits in assessing claims. 
  • The proper interpretation of age relaxation provisions. 
  • The timing of compassionate appointments. 
  • The Supreme Court ultimately resolved the 20+ year dispute by setting aside the High Court orders while ensuring some financial compensation for the defendant. 

What is a Compassionate Appointment?  

• Compassionate Appointment is a provision that allows family members (usually spouse, son, or daughter) of a government employee who dies while in service or retires on medical grounds to be given a job in government service. 
• This is done to help the bereaved family cope with the financial crisis arising from the loss of the earning member. 

What are the Principles Relating to Compassionate Appointment? 

• Following are the 26 principles highlighted by the Supreme Court for Compassionate appointment: 
  • Compassionate appointments are an exception to equality in public employment rules. 
  • Such appointments cannot be made without proper rules or instructions in place. 
  • These appointments are typically offered in two situations: death of a breadwinner or their medical invalidation during service. 
  • The appointments should be made immediately to help families in a sudden financial crisis.  
  • Rules for compassionate appointments must be interpreted strictly as they allow side-door entry.  
  • It's a concession, not a right, and all applicants must meet the set criteria.  
  • No one can claim such appointments as inheritance. 
  • Appointment based on descent goes against constitutional principles and must be strictly limited to its intended purpose. 
  • These appointments aren't a vested right and require consideration of the family's financial condition. 
  • Applications must be made immediately or within a reasonable time after death/incapacitation. 
  • The purpose isn't to give the exact same post to a family member but to provide financial support. 
  • Financial need (indigence) is the primary requirement for consideration. 
  • Compassionate appointments aren't meant to provide endless support. 
  • Meeting eligibility criteria is necessary, beyond just proving financial distress. 
  • Vacancies cannot be reserved for minors to grow up, unless specifically provided for. 
  • Family pension or terminal benefits don't replace employment assistance. 
  • Appointments made years after death/incapacitation violate constitutional principles. 
  • Dependents who are already employed cannot be considered. 
  • Retirement benefits must be considered when determining the family's financial status. 
  • The family's complete financial condition must be evaluated to prevent misuse. 
  • All sources of family income should be considered when evaluating need. 
  • Family Benefit Scheme payments don't disqualify someone from compassionate appointments. 
  • Setting income limits helps ensure objectivity in decision-making. 
  • Courts cannot grant appointments based merely on sympathy. 
  • Courts must follow regulations and cannot make exceptions for hardship cases. 
  • Employers cannot be forced to make appointments against their policy. 

Landmark cases referred in the Present Case 

• Canara Bank v. M Mahesh Kumar (2015): 
  • Held that grant of family pension or terminal benefits cannot be treated as substitute for employment assistance. 
  • Minor dependents can be considered for appointment upon attaining majority if provided in the scheme. 
  • This judgment was later referred to larger bench. 
• General Manager, State Bank of India v. Anju Jain (2008): 
  • Reinforced that compassionate appointments are exceptions to equality in public employment. 
  • Emphasized humanitarian grounds as basis for exception. 
• Haryana State Electricity Board v. Krishna Devi (2002): 
  • Established requirement for rules/instructions. 
  • Cannot make compassionate appointments without formal framework. 
• Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh (1997): 
  • Established fundamental rationale for compassionate appointments. 
  • Emphasized these are exceptions to regular merit-based recruitment. 
  • Main objective: Provide immediate relief to families in sudden crisis. 
  • Made clear it's not an alternative recruitment route. 
• V. Sivamurthy v. Union of India (2008): 
  • Identified two valid exceptions for compassionate appointment: 
    • Death of breadwinner. 
    • Medical invalidation while in service. 
• Sushma Gosain v. Union of India (1989): 
  • Emphasized immediacy requirement. 
  • Appointments should be made promptly to address family's distress. 
  • Delay defeats purpose of scheme. 
• Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi (2009): 
  • Called for strict interpretation of rules. 
  • Being a side-door entry, rules cannot be loosely interpreted. 
• SAIL v. Madhusudan Das (2008): 
  • Established compassionate appointment as concession, not right. 
  • All criteria in rules must be satisfied. 
• State of Chattisgarh v. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar (2009): 
  • Rejected inheritance-based claims 
  • Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as inheritance  
• Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India (2011): 
  • Appointments based solely on descent violate constitutional scheme. 
  • Must be strictly confined to intended purpose. 
• Union of India v. Amrita Sinha (2021): 
  • Rejected vested right concept. 
  • Financial condition must be considered. 
  • Cannot be granted automatically upon death/incapacitation. 
• Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Anil Badyakar (2009): 
  • Emphasized timely application. 
  • Delay in application creates presumption against financial need. 
  • Cannot be claimed after crisis period is over. 
• Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994): 
  • The precedent establishing multiple principles: 
    •  Not about post-for-post replacement. 
    •  Must consider financial condition. 
    •  Limited to Class III and IV posts. 
    •  Cannot be granted as matter of course. 
• Union of India v. B. Kishore (2011): 
  • Established indigence as primary precondition. 
  • Without indigence, scheme becomes unconstitutional reservation.