The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that compassionate employment is not an inherent right but a relief measure designed to support families facing financial hardship after the death of a government employee. A bench comprising Justices AS Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and AG Masih clarified that these appointments are strictly governed by policies and guidelines and cannot be treated as entitlements.
The court emphasized that compassionate employment is meant to provide urgent financial support, not as a standard employment right. Such appointments are scrutinized to ensure they serve families in extreme financial distress, where the loss of the sole breadwinner leaves them economically vulnerable. The bench further clarified that compassionate employment is granted only under existing policies or rules, and without these, no appointment can be made.
This ruling came in the case of a son of a deceased police constable who sought compassionate appointment years after his father’s death, having only reached adulthood 11 years later. The Haryana government’s rules specify that minors must reach the age of majority within three years of the employee’s death to qualify. Since the appellant did not meet this requirement, his claim was denied, and the court upheld this decision.
The court also acknowledged the prolonged delay in processing the appellant’s claim, which overlooked the family’s eligibility for ex-gratia compensation. Recognizing this oversight, the court directed that the appellant’s mother be allowed to request ex-gratia benefits. The competent authority is instructed to review her application within six weeks. If the compensation is awarded promptly, it will be provided without interest; otherwise, an interest rate of 6% will apply until payment.
