Jharkhand High Court
Sujay Swansi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 September, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:27615
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.4965 of 2025
------
Sujay Swansi, aged about 23 years, son of Late Dhondhalo
Swansi Resident of Tola Chaitan, Mardhan, PO- Chirudih, PS-
Tamar, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Ranchi,
Officiating from the office of the Deputy Commissioner-cum-
District Magistrate, Kutchery Road, Post:GPO, Police Station-
Kotwali, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. The Circle Officer Tamar, Officiating from the office of Circle
Officer Tamar, PO & PS- Tamar, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Respondent(s)
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : M/s Raj, Advocate
M/s Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : M/s Rahul Kamlesh, AC to SC-IV
------
th
02/ 10 September,2025
1. Heard parties the at length.
2. The petitioner challenges the order by which his
appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected.
3. Late Dhondhalo Swansi was a 'Chowkidar' under
Tamar Police Station in Beat No.7/2. He died in harness on
10.12.2001. This petitioner who claims himself to be son of
Dhondhalo Swansi applied for compassionate appointment which
was rejected by the impugned order.
4. After going through impugned order, I find that the
reason for rejection is that the petitioner was born after one year
11 days of the death of the employee.
5. Admittedly, the date of death of Dhondhalo Swansi
was 10.12.2001 and this petitioner was born on 21.12.2002. This
fact has been admitted by the petitioner.
6. The aforesaid facts clearly suggests that the petitioner
cannot be said to be a son of Dhondhalo Swansi. As a child
cannot be born from a person who died more than one year ago
from the date of birth of the child.
7. Further, I find that Dhondhalo Swansi died in the year
2001. As per the petitioner's submission, the petitioner was not
1|Page
2025:JHHC:27615
even born at the time of death. Now 24 years have lapsed. The
basic purpose of giving compassionate appointment is now
frustrated. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Canara
Bank Vs. AjithKumar G.K.", reported in 2025 SCC Online SC
290 at paragraph No.11 of its judgment carved out the settled
principles for grant of compassionate appointment which is here
under:-
"11. Decisions of this Court on the contours of appointment
on compassionate ground are legion and it would be apt
for us to consider certain well-settled principles, which
have crystallized through precedents into a rule of law.
They are (not in sequential but contextual order):
a) Appointment on compassionate ground, which is offered
on humanitarian grounds, is an exception to the rule of
equality in the matter of public employment [see General
Manager, State Bank of India v. Anju Jain14]. (2008) 8 SCC
b) Compassionate appointment cannot be made in the
absence of rules or instructions [see Haryana State
Electricity Board v. Krishna Devi15]. (2002) 10 SCC 246
c) Compassionate appointment is ordinarily offered in two
contingencies carved out as exceptions to the general rule,
viz. to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family either on
account of death or of medical invalidation of the
breadwinner while in service [see V. Sivamurthy v. Union of
India16]. (2008) 13 SCC 730
d) The whole object of granting compassionate
employment by an employer being intended to enable the
family members of a deceased or an incapacitated
employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis,
appointments on compassionate ground should be made
immediately to redeem the family in distress [see Sushma
Gosain v. Union of India17]. (1989) 4 SCC 468
e) Since rules relating to compassionate appointment
permit a side-door entry, the same have to be given strict
interpretation [see Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi
Devi18]. (2009) 11 SCC 453
f) Compassionate appointment is a concession and not a
right and the criteria laid down in the Rules must be
satisfied by all aspirants [see SAIL v. Madhusudan Das19].
(2008) 15 SCC 560
2|Page
2025:JHHC:27615
g) None can claim compassionate appointment by way of
inheritance [see State of Chattisgarh v. Dhirjo Kumar
Sengar20]. (2009) 13 SCC 600
h) Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our
constitutional scheme, and being an exception, the scheme
has to be strictly construed and confined only to the
purpose it seeks to achieve [see Bhawani Prasad
Sonkar v. Union of India21]. (2011) 4 SCC 209
i) None can claim compassionate appointment, on the
occurrence of death/medical incapacitation of the
concerned employee (the sole bread earner of the family),
as if it were a vested right, and any appointment without
considering the financial condition of the family of the
deceased is legally impermissible [see Union of
India v. Amrita Sinha22]. (2021) 20 SCC 695
j) An application for compassionate appointment has to be
made immediately upon death/incapacitation and in any
case within a reasonable period thereof or else a
presumption could be drawn that the family of the
deceased/incapacitated employee is not in immediate need
of financial assistance. Such appointment not being a
vested right, the right to apply cannot be exercised at any
time in future and it cannot be offered whatever the lapse
of time and after the crisis is over [see Eastern Coalfields
Ltd. v. Anil Badyakar23]. (2009) 13 SCC 112
k) The object of compassionate employment is not to give a
member of a family of the deceased employee a post much
less a post for post held by the deceased. Offering
compassionate employment as a matter of course
irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the
deceased and making compassionate appointments in
posts above Class III and IV is legally impermissible
[see Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana24]. (1994) 4
SCC 138
l) Indigence of the dependents of the deceased employee is
the first precondition to bring the case under the scheme of
compassionate appointment. If the element of indigence
and the need to provide immediate assistance for relief
from financial destitution is taken away from
compassionate appointment, it would turn out to be a
reservation in favour of the dependents of the employee
who died while in service which would directly be in conflict
with the ideal of equality guaranteed under
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [see Union of
India v. B. Kishore ]. (1994) 4 SCC 138
3|Page
2025:JHHC:27615
m) The idea of compassionate appointment is not to
provide for endless compassion [see I.G.
(Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi ]. (1994) 4 SCC 138
n) Satisfaction that the family members have been facing
financial distress and that an appointment on
compassionate ground may assist them to tide over such
distress is not enough; the dependent must fulfil the
eligibility criteria for such appointment [see State of
Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari27]. (2012) 9 SCC 545
o) There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time
as the applicant becomes a major after a number of years,
unless there are some specific provisions [see Sanjay
Kumar v. State of Bihar28]. (2000) 7 SCC 192
p) Grant of family pension or payment of terminal benefits
cannot be treated as substitute for providing employment
assistance. Also, it is only in rare cases and that too if
provided by the scheme for compassionate appointment
and not otherwise, that a dependent who was a minor on
the date of death/incapacitation, can be considered for
appointment upon attaining majority [see Canara
Bank (supra)]. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 290
q) An appointment on compassionate ground made many
years after the death/incapacitation of the employee or
without due consideration of the financial resources
available to the dependent of the deceased/incapacitated
employee would be directly in conflict with
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [see National
Institute of Technology v. Niraj Kumar Singh29]. (2007) 2
SCC 481
r) Dependents if gainfully employed cannot be considered
[see Haryana Public Service Commission v. Harinder
Singh30]. (2007) 2 SCC 481
s) The retiral benefits received by the heirs of the deceased
employee are to be taken into consideration to determine if
the family of the deceased is left in penury. The court
cannot dilute the criterion of penury to one of "not very
well-to-do". [see General Manager (D and PB) v. Kunti
Tiwary31]. (2004) 7 SCC 271
t) Financial condition of the family of the deceased
employee, allegedly in distress or penury, has to be
evaluated or else the object of the scheme would stand
defeated inasmuch as in such an eventuality, any and every
dependent of an employee dying-in-harness would claim
employment as if public employment is heritable
[see Union of India v. Shashank Goswami32, (2012) 11 SCC
307 Union Bank of India v. M. T. Latheesh33, (2006) 7 SCC
4|Page
2025:JHHC:27615
350National Hydroelectric Power Corporation v. Nank
Chand34 (2004) 12 SCC 487and Punjab National
Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja35]. (2004) 7 SCC 265
u) The terminal benefits, investments, monthly family
income including the family pension and income of family
from other sources, viz. agricultural land were rightly taken
into consideration by the authority to decide whether the
family is living in penury. [see Somvir Singh (supra)].
v) The benefits received by widow of deceased employee
under Family Benefit Scheme assuring monthly payment
cannot stand in her way for compassionate appointment.
Family Benefit Scheme cannot be equated with benefits of
compassionate appointment. [see Balbir Kaur v. SAIL36]
(2004) 7 SCC 265
w) The fixation of an income slab is, in fact, a measure
which dilutes the element of arbitrariness. While,
undoubtedly, the facts of each individual case have to be
borne in mind in taking a decision, the fixation of an
income slab subserves the purpose of bringing objectivity
and uniformity in the process of decision making. [see State
of H.P. v. Shashi Kumar37]. (2019) 3 SCC 653
x) Courts cannot confer benediction impelled by
sympathetic consideration [see Life Insurance Corporation
of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar38]. (1994) 2 SCC 718
y) Courts cannot allow compassionate appointment dehors
the statutory regulations/instructions. Hardship of the
candidate does not entitle him to appointment dehors such
regulations/instructions [see SBI v. Jaspal Kaur39]. (2007) 9
SCC 571
z) An employer cannot be compelled to make an
appointment on compassionate ground contrary to its
policy [see Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Dharmendra
Sharma40]. (2007) 8 SCC 148
It would be of some relevance to mention here that all the
decisions referred to above are by coordinate benches of
two Judges.
8. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
"State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors.",
reported in (2025) 5 SCC 712, has held that delay defeats the
claim of compassionate appointment and, in this case, there is a
delay of 24 years. Further the family has survived this period and
now it cannot be said that there is financial crises which was
5|Page
2025:JHHC:27615
there at the time of the death of the petitioner's father. The crisis
has now been overcome.
9. Since family has overcome during the financial crises
and has survived for more than 24 years from the death of the
Dhondhalo Swansi, no compassionate appointment can be
granted.
10. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition
stands dismissed.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
Sandeep, cp2
6|Page
