MP High Court: Compassionate Appointment Not A Vested Right, Rejects 20-Year-Old Claim

Compassionate appointment to a family member of a deceased employee is based on humanitarian grounds rather than a perpetual right to employment. The Madhya Pradesh High Court, bench comprising Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal, in a decision this month, clarified that the objective of such an appointment is to support the family to face the sudden financial crises because of the death of a sole breadwinner.

Observing that the family members of the deceased employee are not under immediate financial distress, the court dismissed the petition related to an employee’s death two decades ago.  

The deceased was an employee of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). He dies in harness on April 2, 2005. Upon his death, his son (petitioner in this case) submitted an initial application on May 16, 2005, seeking a compassionate appointment. He didn’t receive any response from the employer for several years. In 2016, he submitted another application to the employer, asking for an update on the application.

Further, in 2020, he filed a fresh representation before the authorities and learned from the authorities that his case had already been rejected in 2015. A letter dated July 6, 2015, has also been issued to him regarding this. They informed that on a weightage-based assessment system, he secured only 39 points out of 100. He was informed that, as per the BSNL’s policy, the minimum threshold should be 55 points to consider a compassionate appointment, and his application with only a 39-point score wasn’t eligible for it.

He appealed to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which dismissed it in 2025. It was then that he approached the High Court, challenging both the rejection of his application and the fairness of the 2007 Compassionate Appointment Policy of BSNL.

Arguments

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the 2015 rejection order was never served upon the petitioner. The counsel further contended that his case should have been decided under the DPOT policy of 1998 (prevalent at the time of death), instead of the 2007 guidelines. He also challenged the weighted system as discriminatory, saying that it awarded 15 points to widows and zero points to children.

The respondent’s counsel argued that the family had already survived for over 20 years after the death, and this proves that they were not in immediate financial crisis. On the policy front, the counsel argued that the 2007 policy was based on the 1998 guidelines only, and there is no discrimination.

Court Observation

The high court noted, “The father of the petitioner died on 02.04.2005. More than twenty years have elapsed. The family consisting of the petitioner's mother, two sisters (who were unmarried at the relevant time), and the petitioner himself has not only survived but managed its affairs through these two decades.”

It noted that the petitioner has also completed his engineering during this time. It was observed that the reason for compassionate appointment, which is a sudden, immediate financial crisis, is no longer applicable. “A claim pressed after twenty years cannot be said to address any emergency; the emergency, if it ever existed, has long since passed”, held the court.

On the fairness of policy and discrimination charges, the court noted that the high-powered committee evaluated the petitioner’s appointment request in 2008, and based on the points-based parameter, rejected it. The court noted, “The petitioner’s claim was not kept pending indefinitely nor ignored, but was actively considered on merits within a reasonable period of time in accordance with the prevailing administrative framework. The rejection, therefore, cannot be said to be arbitrary or vitiated merely on account of application of the 2007 Policy.”

Court Judgment

“More than twenty years have elapsed since the death of the employee. The family has not only survived, but the petitioner has completed his engineering education, which itself is indicative of a certain degree of financial stability. The very object of compassionate appointment, namely to tide over a sudden crisis, stands extinguished with the passage of time,” held the court and dismissed the petition.