The Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment schemes must be interpreted liberally to fulfill their humanitarian purpose, and procedural rigidity cannot override welfare objectives. It distinguished compassionate appointment from direct recruitment, ruling that reallocating a candidate to a lower post without essential qualifications does not violate equality clauses if it preserves the scheme’s beneficial character.
Facts Of The Case:
The respondent, Harpal Singh, is the son of a deceased government employee who died in harness on February 28, 2019. Pursuant to the Madhya Pradesh compassionate appointment policy, he was appointed to the post of Assistant Grade-III on September 11, 2020. His appointment order contained a specific condition, derived from Clause 6.5 of the governing policy memorandum, mandating that he must pass the Computer Proficiency Certification Test (CPCT) within three years. Upon his failure to do so within the stipulated period, he was granted an additional one-year extension until September 14, 2024. However, he ultimately failed to obtain the requisite CPCT qualification, leading the appointing authority to issue an order terminating his services on September 30, 2024. Aggrieved by his termination, Harpal Singh approached the High Court. The Single Bench, while upholding the termination, directed the authorities to sympathetically consider appointing him to a lower Class-IV post, which does not require the CPCT qualification. This direction was subsequently affirmed by the Division Bench. The employer, the M.P. State Agricultural Marketing Board, then appealed to the Supreme Court against this directive.
Procedural History:
The legal proceedings began when Harpal Singh, aggrieved by his termination order dated September 30, 2024, filed Writ Petition No. 36707 of 2024 before the Single Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Single Bench, while refraining from quashing the termination order itself, directed the competent authorities to sympathetically consider the respondent’s case for appointment to a lower Class-IV post, subject to his willingness to serve in such capacity. Dissatisfied with this direction, the appellants preferred Writ Appeal No. 894 of 2025 before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench, by judgment dated April 7, 2025, affirmed the Single Bench’s order, upholding the direction for sympathetic consideration of the respondent for a lower post. Subsequently, the Managing Director and others approached the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 26798 of 2025 against the Division Bench’s judgment. The Supreme Court granted leave and heard the matter as Civil Appeal No. of 2025, ultimately dismissing the appeal and upholding the High Court’s directions.
READ ALSO:Cheque Bounce Trials: Supreme Court Rules Payee’s “Home Branch” Decides Jurisdiction, Not Delivery Spot
The Supreme Court made several significant observations regarding the nature and purpose of compassionate appointments. The Court observed that compassionate appointment is not a concession or largesse but a structured welfare response to prevent the economic calamity that follows the death of a government employee. It emphasized that a welfare State cannot allow bereaved families to slide into destitution through mechanical application of procedural formalities. The Court further observed that compassionate appointments stand on a distinct footing from direct recruitment, being an exception to the rule of equality in public employment, and therefore cannot be subjected to the same strict standards of qualification compliance. The Court observed that procedural rigidities in welfare schemes are meant to provide structure, not to become obstacles through which vulnerable individuals slip. Additionally, the Court observed that the respondent’s case involved no prejudice to other candidates since compassionate appointments are made against earmarked posts and do not trench upon regular recruitment vacancies. The Court also observed that the direction for consideration of a Class-IV post did not violate Clause 13.1 of the policy, as this was not a second compassionate appointment but merely a downward adjustment within the same framework to preserve the scheme’s welfare objective.
Download The Judgement Here