The Supreme Court of India on June 17, 2025 dismissed a special leave petition challenging the decision of the Rajasthan High Court which had earlier dismissed the petition for compassionate appointment.

The matter was heard by a bench of Justices Ujjwal Bhuyan and Manmohan, who found no merit in the petition. The court questioned how compassionate appointment could be justified when the petitioner comes from a financially well-off background.

Read also: Supreme Court Upholds Bombay HC’s Order to Demolish 17 Illegal Buildings in Thane Built by Underworld-Linked

“You cannot stretch compassionate appointment to absurd limits. You are the son of the Principal Commissioner of Central Excise. Where does the question of compassionate appointment arise?” - Justice Ujjwal Bhuyan

The petitioner's father was working as the Principal Commissioner in the Central Excise Department and passed away on August 27, 2015 while still in service.

After the father's demise, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. However, the request was rejected at various levels, including the Central Administrative Tribunal. Officials pointed out that the family's financial condition was stable.

It was revealed that the family received a monthly pension of ₹85,000, owned 33 acres of agricultural land, a residential house in their village and also a high income group (HIG) house in Jaipur.

Read also: Supreme Court to Hear Tamil Nadu ADGP Jayaram’s Plea Against HC Arrest Order

“Madam, you have a residential house on 33 acres of land. You have a high-profile house in Jaipur, your annual income from agriculture is…., and you are getting ₹5,000….” — Justice Manmohan

The petitioner then moved the Rajasthan High Court, but the court upheld the rejection, saying that the applicant failed to show the financial hardship required to justify compassionate appointment.

Agreeing with the High Court, the Supreme Court found no error in the order and stressed that compassionate appointments are meant for families who are facing genuine financial distress due to the sudden death of a government servant.

Read also: Supreme Court grants 7-day stay on demolition of Thane dargah, allows plea to recall Bombay HC order

Order: “We find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order. The same is set aside on grounds of delay and inadequacy on merits.”

The Court's decision highlighted that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to help families in distress and not to benefit those who are already financially secure.

Case Details: RAVI KUMAR JEPH v. JOINT DIRECTOR AND ANR.|Diary No. 25916-2025