Indigence forms the key factor in compassionate appointment
The Supreme Court (SC), in Canara Bank v Ajithkumar G K [2025 INSC 184], says indigence of the dependants of the deceased employee is the fundamental condition to be satisfied under any scheme for appointment on compassionate ground.
If such indigence is not proved, grant of relief in furtherance of protective discrimination would result in a sort of reservation for the dependents of the employee dying-in-harness, thereby directly conflicting with the equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Grant compassionate appoint in hand to mouth cases
The SC says compassionate appointment, should be granted only in “hand-to-mouth” cases. The “hand-to-mouth” cases mean cases where the family of the deceased is ‘below poverty line’ and struggling to pay basic expenses such as food, rent, utilities, etc., arising out of lack of any steady source of sustenance. This has to be distinguished from a mere fall in standard of life arising out of the death of the bread earner.
The deceased must be the sole breadwinner
The SC adds that the underlying idea behind compassionate appointment in case of an employee’s death is that he/ she was the sole earner for the family. The court says there is no straitjacket formula to be applied uniformly in cases of employee dying in harness and the peculiarities and financial conditions in each case must be assessed individually.
SC relies on a plethora of judgements
The paragraph 11 of the judgement provides 26 previous judgements that clarified the principles of compassionate appointment to be followed while taking a decision on compassionate appointment.
