The Supreme Court of India, in a pivotal judgment delivered on February 11, 2025, emphasized that compassionate appointments are intended solely for families in dire financial distress following the untimely death of a breadwinner. Highlighting its decision in Canara Bank vs. Ajithkumar G.K., the Court clarified that such appointments are not a matter of right but an exception to support families struggling to meet basic needs.
“Compassionate appointments are meant for families in ‘hand-to-mouth’ situations, not for addressing a mere decline in lifestyle standards due to the loss of an income earner,” stated the Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Overturns High Court Order Mandating Security Guards at All ATMs
Case Background
Ajithkumar G.K. filed a claim for compassionate appointment after the death of his father, a Canara Bank employee, in 2001. Despite his application falling under the 1993 scheme that allowed such appointments, Canara Bank denied his request citing two main reasons:
His mother was receiving a family pension of ₹4,637.92.
Ajithkumar exceeded the maximum permissible age for the role by eight months.
Subsequently, Ajithkumar's case was subjected to prolonged litigation, involving decisions by the Kerala High Court's Single and Division Benches before reaching the Supreme Court.
1. "Hand-to-Mouth" Standard:The Court made it unequivocally clear that compassionate appointments are meant only for families facing severe financial distress. The Bench elaborated:
“Such cases must demonstrate an inability to cover basic expenses like food, rent, and utilities due to the lack of a steady income source. A mere fall in living standards does not justify compassionate appointment.”
2. Delay and Its Implications: The judgment noted that the claim was delayed by over two decades, raising questions about immediate financial distress:
“A delay often implies that the family has managed to stabilize financially, negating the need for compassionate appointment,” the Court observed. However, it acknowledged that Ajithkumar diligently pursued his claim in court, absolving him of blame for the delay.
The Court analyzed the financial situation of Ajithkumar's family in detail:
The deceased employee's family received terminal benefits amounting to ₹3.09 lakhs, which would have matched his retirement benefits.
The family owned a house and received a family pension.
All daughters were married and financially independent, leaving only Ajithkumar and his mother as dependents.
The Court concluded that the family was not in "penury" or "indigent circumstances" warranting compassionate appointment.
“The family’s financial situation does not suggest a level of distress that justifies bypassing the normal recruitment process for compassionate grounds,” the judgment noted.
The Court relied on prior judgments to reinforce its reasoning:
Union of India vs. B. Kishore (2011):
"Compassionate appointment is not a reservation but a necessity for families in financial distress.”
Read Also:- Violation of Judicial Orders: Is Imprisonment the Only Solution? Supreme Court's Important Interpretation
General Manager (D&PB) vs. Kunti Tiwary (2004):
“Penury, not merely a decline in living standards, must be established for such appointments.”
Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana (1994):
“Compassionate appointments must be made immediately to address financial crises, not as an alternative mode of recruitment.”
While setting aside the High Court's directives for Ajithkumar’s appointment, the Supreme Court invoked its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. It directed Canara Bank to pay Ajithkumar a lump sum of ₹2.5 lakhs as a final settlement, observing:
“This payment balances the interests of justice with the principles governing compassionate appointments.”
The Court reiterated that compassionate appointments cannot serve as a substitute for regular recruitment and must adhere to the specific objectives outlined in relevant schemes.
