Rajasthan High Court: In a significant ruling concerning the obligations arising from compassionate appointment, a Single Bench of Anand Sharma, J., held that a beneficiary of compassionate appointment cannot neglect the dependent family members whose welfare formed the basis of such appointment. The Court observed that compassionate appointment is a welfare measure intended to provide financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee and carries a corresponding moral and legal obligation towards other dependants. The Court allowed writ petition,and directed a deduction of 25% of the beneficiary’s monthly salary for the maintenance of the surviving parent as well as ordered an equal distribution of the deceased employee’s terminal benefits.
Also read: Can Compassionate Appointment be claimed if a Family Member is Earning? Chhattisgarh HC answers
Factual Matrix
The deceased employee was serving as a Technical Helper with the respondent-Corporation and was the sole breadwinner of his family. He died on 24-3-2017. Following his death, his widow was granted compassionate appointment. At the time of seeking such appointment, she furnished an undertaking to maintain the other dependent family members of the deceased employee.
Subsequently, she left the matrimonial home, stopped providing financial support to the dependants, and remarried. The dependents of the deceased employee stated that they had no independent source of livelihood and were struggling to meet their day-to-day needs. They approached the respondent-Corporation seeking release of terminal benefits and a share of her salary for their maintenance, however, no order was passed. The respondent-Corporation stated that while the unpaid salary and leave encashment benefits had already been released to the widow, the terminal benefits had not been disbursed to any person due to the inter se dispute between the parties.
Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.
Analysis and Decision
The Court, after examining the facts of the case, observed that the object of compassionate appointment is to grant financial assistance to the family so that they will tide over the crisis, which arose on account of sudden death of sole bread earner in the family. The family does not only include widow of deceased but also includes his parents and other family members as prescribed under the Rules.
The Court noted that respondent 3 submitted an undertaking in the form of affidavit that she would also maintain the other family members of the deceased employee. However, after getting the appointment, she moved out of the matrimonial home, remarried and left the petitioners to face financial crisis as well as other deeds of life, which is nothing but an apparent violation of fundamental spirit of scheme of compassionate appointment. The Court observed that after giving an undertaking, she cannot completely disassociate herself from the obligation, which formed the very basis of the compassionate appointment.
Referring to the observations made in Bhagwan Singh v. Ajmer Vidhut Vitran Nigam Limited, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 7187, the Court reaffirmed that compassionate appointments confer moral responsibilities upon the appointee to maintain other family members and the beneficiary of such appointment cannot enjoy its benefits while neglecting the other family members, whose maintenance was one of the objectives of the scheme.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent-corporation to deduct 25% of the regular monthly salary of the respondent-3 and credit the same directly in the bank account of petitioner 2 so long as she survives, as petitioner-1 had already expired during pendency of the writ petition. The Court also directed the respondent-corporation to release the terminal benefits of the deceased employee, and divide the same equally between the surviving petitioner and the respondent 3.
[Choth Mal Verma v. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1203/2018, decided on 17-9-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ramit Pareek, Ms. Ujala Pareek and Mr. Kartik Sharma, Advocates
For the Respondent (1 & 2): Mr. Abhishek Sharma and Mr. Rohit Thakar, Advocates
For the Respondent (3): Mr. Vidhut Kumar Gupta, Advocate
