Orissa High Court: While adjudicating an intra-court appeal arising out of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Division Bench of Dixit Krishna Shripad* and Chittaranjan Dash, JJ., observed that the denial of compassionate appointment to the dependent spouse of a medically invalidated member of a combatant force was contrary to the object and intent of the governing scheme. The Court emphasised that disability suffered in combat duty may, in many cases, be equivalent to death in harness and that such cases warrant a liberal interpretation of compassionate appointment schemes. Finding no infirmity in the order of the Single Judge, the Court declined to interfere and dismissed the appeal.
Background:
The matter arose when a combatant police personnel, while on combat duty in Srinagar, suffered acute physical disability due to a bomb blast engineered by terrorists. He was discharged from service in 2014. His dependent spouse sought compassionate appointment, which was turned down in 2020. Though she was offered the post of Constable (Ground Duty), she staked her claim for the post of Head Constable. The Single Judge allowed her claim in 2024, leading to the present intra-court appeal.
The appellants argued that the spouse was rightly offered the post of Constable, which she refused, and that a claimant cannot demand a particular post on compassionate grounds. They contended that the appointing authority had discretion to appoint to any post within the cadre, which was not open to judicial review, and further submitted that the 2013 Scheme had to be construed consistent with standing orders, requiring a written test. Since the spouse secured only 50/200 marks, she was not qualified.
The respondents opposed the appeal, submitting that the Single Judge had rightly considered all aspects and that interference was unwarranted, stressing that intra-court appeals should not become roving enquiries absent demonstrable errors.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that compassionate appointment is ordinarily provided to a family member of an employee dying in harness and that the principle is not confined to death alone but extends to dependents of a medically invalidated government employee, if rules so provide, as the hardship faced by such families can be as harsh as in the case of death in harness.
The Court emphasised that Article 41 of the Constitution makes it imperative on the State to provide public assistance in cases of unemployment, which may arise due to medical invalidity of a serving employee, and observed that the discretion to make such appointment, whether in the case of death or disablement, is justiciable where there is a prima facie breach of policy content or intent. The Court highlighted that a society, which does not hold the Defence Personnel in high esteem, will do disservice to itself, inasmuch as its own security will be at stake, if those who guard it are not regarded. Therefore, the claim for compassionate appointment in such special cases have to be processed with humane approach and not in a bureaucratic manner.
The Court relied on Arun Kumar v. Union of India, (2007) 5 SCC 580 and recognised that compassionate appointment in the Armed and Police Forces stands on a different footing. It was further noted that in Central Reserve Police Force (‘CRPF’) there exists a Scheme for compassionate appointment on the grounds of death or disability of an employee in harness, primarily due to the higher occupational hazards to life and limb inherent in such employment.
The Court observed that the provisions of such a Scheme must be liberally construed in favour of the claimant and that denial of the post of Head Constable, despite offering the post of Constable, did not reflect such an approach and constituted an error apparent on the face of the record. The Court rejected the submission that the claimant, having failed in the Written Test, could not stake her claim, noting that there was no legal requirement of such a test and that compelling her to appear for it was itself incompetent.
The Court emphasised that where the post of Head Constable is in the same cadre as the post of Constable and the Scheme envisages all such posts for compassionate appointment, insistence on a Written Test only for the post of Head Constable was un-understandable and contrary to the intent and policy of the Statutory Scheme. The Court remarked that authorities dealing with compassionate appointment, especially in cases of death or disability of employees in Combat Forces, must adopt a humane and positive approach consistent with the intent of the Statutory Scheme.
The Court held that the appellants’ approach was bureaucratic and contrary to constitutional principles, and that denial of compassionate appointment to the post of Head Constable constituted an error apparent on the face of the record. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the order of the Single Judge was upheld.
While the Court considered imposing exemplary costs of Rs 50,000 due to prolonged litigation, it refrained in the interest of justice and directed the appellants to implement the order within eight weeks and report compliance.
[Union of India v. Ajit Kumar Khuntia, W.A No. 1220 of 2025, decided on 15-01-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Appellants: Biswajit Maharana, Senior Panel Counsel
For Respondents: Sameer Kumar Das, P.K. Behera & Niranjan Lenka
Buy Constitution of India HERE
