In a crucial ruling, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), presided over by Justice Abdul Moin, dismissed a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment nearly 25 years after the petitioner’s father passed away. The court emphasized that compassionate appointments are an exception rather than a right and must be sought within a reasonable timeframe.
Referring to a recent Supreme Court judgment in Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K., the High Court underscored that compassionate employment is meant to provide immediate relief to a bereaved family in financial distress and cannot be claimed as a matter of inheritance. The court found that such an excessive delay negates the very purpose of the compassionate appointment scheme.
Case Background
The case, Mamta Devi v. State of U.P. and Others (Writ – A No. 2628 of 2025), involved the petitioner, Mamta Devi, who sought compassionate appointment following the death of her father, who was employed with the Uttar Pradesh Transport Department. Her father passed away on August 21, 2000, while still in service.
Despite the long lapse of time, the petitioner approached the court for a government job, claiming entitlement under the compassionate appointment scheme. The case was contested by the State of Uttar Pradesh, represented by Standing Counsel Pradeep Kumar Shukla, while the petitioner was represented by Advocates Neeraj Kumar Baghel, Amrendra Kumar, Piyush Pathak, and Praveen Yadav.
The key issue before the court was whether an applicant could seek a compassionate appointment decades after the death of the employee, when the immediate financial distress, which the scheme intends to address, no longer exists.
Important Legal Issues
The court examined the following key legal issues in light of precedents and established jurisprudence:
Whether compassionate appointment can be sought after an inordinate delay of 25 years.
Whether compassionate appointment is a right or a concession.
Whether granting a compassionate appointment after decades would defeat the objective of the scheme.
The role of financial necessity in determining eligibility for compassionate appointment.
The Allahabad High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K. (Civil Appeal No. 255 of 2025, decided on 11.02.2025), which laid down strict guidelines for compassionate appointments.
Important Observations of the Court
The court reiterated key observations from the Supreme Court’s ruling, stating that:
Compassionate appointment is not a vested right, but an exception to the general rule of public employment. The appointment is granted only in cases of immediate financial distress caused by the sudden demise or medical incapacitation of the breadwinner.
A delay in seeking compassionate appointment itself indicates that the family was not in financial crisis, thereby defeating the purpose of the scheme. The Supreme Court had held that applications must be made immediately or within a reasonable timeframe, beyond which they become invalid.
The court cannot allow compassionate appointments as a matter of inheritance. The scheme is not meant for securing jobs for dependents as a matter of entitlement, but only as an exceptional measure to alleviate financial hardship.
“Lapse of time could be a major factor for denying compassionate appointment where the claim is lodged belatedly. A presumption is legitimately drawn that the family of the deceased is not in immediate need of financial assistance.”
Granting a job decades later would amount to reserving a vacancy for the dependent, which violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution (Right to Equality).
The court emphasized that government employment cannot be a hereditary privilege and that appointments must be strictly governed by policy and rules.
Decision of the Court
After considering the delay of 25 years and relevant legal precedents, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition. The court observed that allowing such delayed applications would set a dangerous precedent, turning compassionate appointments into a scheme for hereditary government employment rather than an emergency relief measure.
“Compassionate appointment is not a vested right, nor is it meant to provide jobs to family members long after the death of the employee. The entire purpose of the scheme is to mitigate immediate financial hardship, and a 25-year delay negates that objective entirely.”
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, upholding the constitutional principle of equal opportunity in public employment.
Case Details
Case Name: Mamta Devi v. State of U.P. and Others
Case No.: WRIT – A No. 2628 of 2025
Bench: Justice Abdul Moin
Petitioner’s Advocates: Neeraj Kumar Baghel, Amrendra Kumar, Piyush Pathak, Praveen Yadav
Respondent’s Counsel: Pradeep Kumar Shukla (Standing Counsel)
