The Rajasthan High Court Bench at Jaipur, presided over by Justice Anand Sharma, has ruled that an individual appointed on compassionate grounds cannot repudiate the obligation to maintain the surviving dependents of the deceased employee after securing employment. Holding that a daughter-in-law who secured employment on the basis of an undertaking cannot abandon her elderly in-laws, the High Court directed the employer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, to deduct 25% of her regular monthly salary and disburse it directly to her widowed mother-in-law for life, alongside an equal division of the deceased’s remaining terminal benefits.
Background of the Case
The writ petition was instituted by Shri Choth Mal Verma and his wife, Smt. Kamli Devi. Their son, late Shri Subhash Chand Verma, was employed as a Technical Helper with the respondent Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (AVVNL) and was the sole bread earner of the family. Following his death on March 24, 2017, his widow, Smt. Mamta Rani (respondent No. 3), applied for compassionate appointment.
The parents submitted a no-objection certificate, and respondent No. 3 provided an affidavit containing an undertaking that she would maintain the other family members. Consequently, vide an order dated August 30, 2017, she was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC). However, after securing the appointment, respondent No. 3 departed from the matrimonial home, remarried, and ceased providing financial maintenance to her deceased husband’s parents. During the pendency of the writ petition, the father, Shri Choth Mal Verma, passed away, leaving Smt. Kamli Devi as the sole surviving petitioner.
Submissions of the Parties
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the deceased employee was the sole financial support for the family and that the appointment was granted on the express undertaking that respondent No. 3 would maintain the surviving family members. It was argued that the petitioners were left in severe destitution, lacking means for daily subsistence, as their other two sons remained unemployed and unable to render financial aid. The petitioners sought directions for a portion of respondent No. 3’s monthly salary to be paid to them regularly and for an equal division of the terminal benefits.
Counsel appearing for AVVNL stated that compassionate appointment was extended under the presumption that respondent No. 3 would maintain the family of the deceased employee. The employer stated it had no objection to apportioning the terminal benefits or deducting part of the salary in compliance with judicial orders. The employer further clarified that while unpaid salary and privileged leave encashment had already been disbursed to respondent No. 3, other terminal benefits were withheld due to the inter se dispute.
Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 argued that she had been mistreated by the petitioners, forcing her to leave the matrimonial home. It was contended that following the father’s demise, the mother could be supported by her two surviving sons, and therefore, respondent No. 3 should not be burdened with sharing her salary or terminal benefits. Counsel nonetheless admitted that respondent No. 3 had remarried after obtaining the compassionate appointment.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court observed that the core objective of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial relief to enable the family of a deceased bread earner to overcome the crisis. The Court clarified that the concept of family extends beyond the widow to include the deceased employee’s parents and dependents under the governing rules.
Addressing the conduct of the appointee, the Court held that having derived the benefit of compassionate appointment on the strength of a solemn undertaking, respondent No. 3 could not dissociate herself from that fundamental obligation. Justice Anand Sharma observed:
“It cannot be countenanced that, after the death of her husband, the daughter in law, having secured compassionate appointment in his place, may thereafter abandon her old aged in-laws and leave them at the mercy of destiny.”
The Court placed explicit reliance on the coordinate bench decision in Bhagwan Singh Vs. Suptd Engineer Pawas, Ajmer Vidhut Vitran Nigam Limited [2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 364], which held that compassionate appointment is not an individual entitlement or a vested right earned through merit, but a representative welfare measure carrying an implicit fiduciary obligation. The coordinate bench had observed:
“It is settled law that compassionate appointment is not a vested right but an act of grace, intended to alleviate the financial hardship of the family of the deceased government servant. It is a welfare measure, not a mode of employment. The appointment granted to respondent No.4, therefore, carried an implicit fiduciary obligation that the emoluments and benefits flowing from such appointment would be used to sustain the family unit of the deceased employee. The respondent No.4, having derived such employment on the strength of her solemn affidavit, cannot now resile from the promise that formed the very substratum of the benefit conferred upon her. To allow her to do so would amount to permitting a fraud upon the compassionate scheme itself.”
The Court also reiterated from Bhagwan Singh that such appointments are rooted in the principles of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996:
“Consequently, when one member of such a family is extended the benefit of compassionate appointment, the appointment is not conferred in an individual capacity but as a representative of the entire family. It therefore carries with it a corresponding moral and legal obligation to safeguard the interests of the other surviving dependents and to ensure their maintenance and well-being.”
Expressing complete concurrence with these principles, the High Court held that respondent No. 3’s departure, remarriage, and subsequent failure to support her mother-in-law constituted an apparent violation of the foundational spirit of the compassionate appointment scheme.
Decision of the Court
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court issued the following directions to secure the subsistence of the surviving mother, Smt. Kamli Devi:
- Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited is directed to deduct 25% of the regular monthly salary of respondent No. 3 and credit the amount directly into the bank account of petitioner No. 2 (Smt. Kamli Devi). Petitioner No. 2 must furnish her bank account details to the Corporation within 15 days. This deduction and credit arrangement shall continue for the lifetime of petitioner No. 2.
- The respondent-Corporation is directed to release the remaining terminal benefits of late Shri Subhash Chand Verma within 30 days, dividing the amount equally between petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 3, with the 50% share of petitioner No. 2 being credited directly to her bank account.
All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
Case Details
Case Title: Shri Choth Mal Verma & Anr. v. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors.
Case No.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1203/2018
Bench: Justice Anand Sharma
Date: 17/09/2026
