Family Survived on Pension Alone: Rajasthan HC Allows Compassionate Appointment 20 Years After Father's Death

The Rajasthan High Court's Division Bench set aside a Single Judge order and directed CSIR-CEERI to consider Umesh Singh for compassionate appointment, ruling that survival on meagre pension is not proof that a family's financial crisis has ended.

A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur, comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma, has allowed the compassionate appointment appeal of Umesh Singh, whose father, a Technician at CSIR-Central Electronics Engineering Research Institution (CSIR-CEERI) in Pilani, died in harness on 3 March 2005. Umesh was barely two-and-a-half years old at the time. The Bench set aside the Single Judge's order dated 9 September 2024, which had dismissed the writ petition, and directed CSIR-CEERI to consider Umesh for appointment on a suitable post forthwith. The Division Bench held that the family's bare subsistence on a deceased employee's pension does not constitute a dignified existence under Article 21 of the Constitution, and that no undue delay can be attributed to an applicant who applied within a reasonable period of attaining majority.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Umesh Singh's father died while in service, leaving behind a family of five daughters and a son. With no earning member, financial responsibility passed to the appellant's grandparents. The grandfather himself subsequently passed away, having incurred significant debt to fund the marriages of three of the appellant's sisters. The sole income of the household remained the pension payable upon the father's death.

Umesh was born on 1 August 2002 and turned eighteen on 1 August 2020. He submitted his application for compassionate appointment on 27 July 2020, just before attaining majority. CSIR-CEERI rejected the application on 28 April 2023, citing the fact that the death had occurred more than fifteen years earlier.

The appellant's counsel, Mr. Shashank Bansali, appearing with Mr. Rohit Choudhary and Mr. Krishna Verma, argued before the Single Judge that Umesh could not have applied earlier because he was a minor at the time of his father's death, that officials had verbally assured consideration upon his attaining majority, and that the applicable Central Government scheme does not prescribe a time limit for deciding compassionate appointment applications. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, accepting the respondent's position that the family had managed for over fifteen years and that sympathetic considerations alone cannot ground such relief.

Umesh challenged that dismissal by way of D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 211/2025 before the Division Bench.

The Central Legal Questions

Two issues were at the heart of the appeal. First, whether an applicant who was a minor at the time of the government servant's death and who applied within a reasonable period after attaining majority can be said to have made a belated claim. Second, whether the family's survival on pension and gratuity, without any member in regular employment, constitutes sufficient proof that the financial crisis had ended.

These questions required the Bench to construe paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment under the Central Government, issued by the Department of Personnel and Training.

What the Scheme Says

The Division Bench quoted paragraph 9 of the DoPT scheme, which states that any application for compassionate appointment is to be considered without any time limit, with a decision to be taken on merit in each case. Paragraph 10 deals with belated requests and provides that ministries and departments may consider such requests even where death occurred long back, say five years or so. It further states that the very fact that a family has managed somehow all these years should normally be taken as adequate proof of some means of subsistence, and that the decision to make compassionate appointment in such cases may be taken only at the Secretary level.

The Bench read the phrase “manage somehow” in paragraph 10(a) to mean a dignified existence as per Article 21, not mere physical survival. It found from the family's income figures that they were insufficient for a dignified existence. The Bench also noted that the phrase “or so” in paragraph 10(a) indicates that applicants who apply more than five years after the death of an employee remain eligible, reflecting the framers' intent not to close the door on such cases.

How the Bench Reasoned

The respondent's counsel pressed the position that three of the appellant's sisters were eligible at the time of the father's death in 2005 and did not apply, and that no scheme provision allowed a minor's claim to be held over for consideration upon attaining majority. The respondent also pointed to the pension and gratuity received by the family as evidence of financial soundness.

The Bench rejected both arguments. On the question of other eligible members not having applied, it held that hyper-technical reasons cannot be used to defeat the objective of a compassionate appointment scheme, particularly where the scheme does not mandate the first eligible person in the family to apply and where the family's indigent condition is apparent.

On the delay argument, the Bench relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Govinda Janardan Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7489/2023, dated 6 November 2023), which addressed a nearly identical factual matrix. In that case, the Supreme Court set aside a High Court order that had refused compassionate appointment on the ground that fifteen years had passed since the father's death and the family had survived during that period. The Supreme Court held that an applicant who was a minor at the time of the parent's death could only apply after attaining majority, and that applying within a reasonable period thereafter does not constitute undue delay.

The Division Bench also drew on the Supreme Court's summary of compassionate appointment principles in Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K. (Civil Appeal No. 255/2025, dated 11 February 2025). One of those principles states that grant of family pension or payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as a substitute for employment assistance, and that a dependent who was a minor on the date of death may be considered for appointment upon attaining majority where the scheme provides for it.

The Bench further cited a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in T. Dinakar v. The Principal Secretary to Government, Public Health and Preventive Medicine Department (2017 SCC OnLine Mad 20804), which held that mere survival of a family for any number of years does not remove it from indigent circumstances, particularly where no member of the deceased's family is employed and in a position to look after the household.

The respondent had also relied on three Supreme Court decisions cited by the Single Judge: Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. v. Anusree K.B., Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Gouri Devi, and Central Coalfields Ltd. v. Parden Oraon. The Division Bench distinguished all three. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. was decided on facts where the deceased's widow was already in employment at the time of death, which is not the case here. Central Coalfields Ltd. holds that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is over, a formulation the Bench read as requiring both conditions to be satisfied: significant delay and the crisis having ended. Since neither condition was met here, that decision did not assist the respondent. Gouri Devi involved unjustifiable delay, which the Bench found was also absent on the present facts.

Outcome

The Division Bench allowed the Special Appeal Writ. The order dated 9 September 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. CWP No. 12681/2024 was set aside. CSIR-CEERI was directed to consider Umesh Singh for grant of compassionate appointment on a suitable post forthwith. All pending applications were disposed of.