The Rajasthan High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in Sagar Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors., quashing the termination of a compassionate appointee after 15 years of service. The petitioner, Sagar Kumar, was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in 2010 following the martyrdom of his father during Operation Pawan. His termination in 2024, based on a belated complaint about his ineligibility for having three children, was deemed unjust by the Court.
Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur emphasized that compassionate appointments aim to provide immediate relief to families of deceased employees, not to enforce rigid technicalities. The Court noted:
"The rules framed to serve humanitarian ends should not be used as instruments of injustice... Terminating services after 15 years defeats the scheme’s objective and harms the petitioner, who served with an unblemished record."
Read also:- Repeated Absence by Advocates in Court is Professional Misconduct, Says Allahabad High Court
The petitioner had disclosed all family details, including his three children, during his appointment and subsequent service records. A complaint in 2019 led to his termination, despite no findings of concealment or fraud. The State argued his appointment violated the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1996 and Subordinate Offices Ministerial Service Rules, 1999, which bar candidates with more than two children.
However, the Court referenced Supreme Court rulings (Umesh Kumar Nagpal v State of Haryana, Md. Zamil Ahmed v State of Bihar) to underscore that compassionate appointments require a sensitive, case-specific approach. It held:
"When no suppression or malafide is proven, and the State itself verified the petitioner’s eligibility, termination after prolonged service is excessively harsh."
Read also:- Consumer Forum Must Allow Rebuttal Evidence, Cannot Decide Cases Summarily: J&K High Court
The judgment highlighted the petitioner’s unique circumstances—his father’s martyrdom, his 15-year service, and the absence of misconduct—as grounds for relief. The Court concluded that denying compassion in such cases would undermine the scheme’s purpose.
Key Takeaways
- Compassionate appointments prioritize humanitarian relief over rigid eligibility.
- Delayed actions based on technicalities harm employees with long, unblemished service.
- Courts may intervene if termination disregards fairness and the scheme’s intent.
Title: Sagar Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.