Ajay Kumar Sharma v. Union Of India And ORS

It is a settled position that appointment on compassionate basis is

not a vested right available to any person and neither is it a mode of alternate recruitment. The same is a measure adopted by an employer to help the family of the deceased employee to tide over an immediate crisis which may arise on death of such employee or overcome the state of penury which visits them on such death. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and others, 1994(3) SCT 174 has held that whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family of deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis and to save the family from financial destitution. This favourable treatment given to dependent of the deceased employee was accepted as it bore a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved viz. relief against destitution.

It is further observed that compassionate appointment can't be claimed when the crisis is over and neither can it be offered on an ad hoc basis. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Amit Sriwas, 2020(10) SCC 496 has reiterated that there is no inherent right to appointment on compassionate basis. It is a right based on certain criteria and is to provide support to a needy family.