In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India, in the case Canara Bank vs. Ajithkumar G.K. (Civil Appeal No. 255 of 2025), clarified the legal principles governing compassionate appointments. The bench, comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, outlined 26 important principles related to compassionate appointments in government jobs.

Compassionate appointment is a special provision meant to assist families who lose their primary breadwinner due to death or permanent disability while in service. However, such appointments are an exception to the general rule of equal opportunity in public employment and are granted only under specific conditions.

26 Legal Principles on Compassionate Appointment

1. Compassionate Appointment is an Exception, Not a Right : Compassionate appointments are granted on humanitarian grounds and do not fall under the general rule of equal employment opportunities. (Reference: SBI vs. Anju Jain, 2008 8 SCC 475)

2. No Appointment Without Rules or Instructions : A government department cannot provide compassionate appointments unless specific policies or rules exist. (Reference: Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Krishna Devi, 2002 10 SCC 246)

Read Also:- Compassionate Appointments: Supreme Court Emphasizes "Hand-to-Mouth" Cases

3. Only Two Conditions for Appointment :

• (i) The death of a government employee
• (ii) Permanent disability of the employee while in service (Reference: V. Sivamurthy vs. Union of India, 2008 13 SCC 730)

4. Immediate Financial Relief is the Main Objective : Compassionate appointments should be made promptly to help families overcome an immediate financial crisis. (Reference: Sushma Gosain vs. Union of India, 1989 4 SCC 468)

5. No ‘Side-Door Entry’ into Government Jobs : Since compassionate appointments bypass the regular recruitment process, they must be granted strictly under the prescribed rules. (Reference: Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan vs. Laxmi Devi, 2009 11 SCC 453)

6. It is a Concession, Not an Inherited Right : Compassionate appointments are not a hereditary entitlement. All applicants must fulfill the eligibility criteria set by the government. (Reference: SAIL vs. Madhusudan Das, 2008 15 SCC 560)

7. No Appointment Based on Family Lineage : Public employment is not inheritable, and jobs cannot be passed down within families. (Reference: State of Chhattisgarh vs. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar, 2009 13 SCC 600)

8. No Appointment if Family is Financially Stable : If a family is financially self-sufficient after receiving pensions and other benefits, a compassionate appointment cannot be granted. (Reference: Union of India vs. Amrita Sinha, 2021 20 SCC 695)

9. Application Must be Filed Without Delay : If a dependent does not apply immediately after the employee’s death or disability, it will be assumed that they do not require urgent financial assistance. (Reference: Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs. Anil Badyakar, 2009 13 SCC 112)

10. Financial Status Must be Evaluated Before Appointment : A thorough assessment of the family's financial condition is mandatory before approving a compassionate appointment. (Reference: Punjab National Bank vs. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, 2004 7 SCC 265)

Read Also:- Supreme Court: DRT Cannot Return Secured Asset to Someone Who is Neither the Borrower Nor the Legal Possessor Under SARFAESI Act

What Did the Supreme Court Say?

“The purpose of compassionate appointment is not to provide employment to an individual but to offer immediate financial relief to a family in distress. If a family is financially secure, they are not eligible for this benefit.”– Supreme Court, Canara Bank vs. Ajithkumar G.K.

Case Study: Canara Bank vs. Ajithkumar G.K.

In this case, Ajithkumar G.K. applied for a compassionate appointment after his father's demise. Canara Bank rejected his application, stating that his mother was receiving a family pension and the family was not in financial distress.

The Kerala High Court overturned this decision and directed the bank to appoint Ajithkumar. Dissatisfied with this ruling, Canara Bank appealed to the Supreme Court.

✔️ Ajithkumar’s family was not in financial distress as they were receiving a pension and other benefits.

✔️ The bank had acted as per its rules, and rejecting the application was justified.

✔️ Compassionate appointment cannot be granted if the family is financially stable, as it would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution (Right to Equality).

The Supreme Court overturned the Kerala High Court’s order and ruled in favor of Canara Bank.