'Pious Intention' Of Compassionate Appointment Is To Give Relief To Deceased Employee's Kin, Can't Be Misused: Gujarat High Court

Underscoring the "pious intention" of compassionate appointment which is to give relief to the deceased employee's kin, the Gujarat High Court stopped short of imposing costs on a litigant for suppressing material facts after noting that she only intended to secure the appointment of her son at LIC after her husband's death. 

In doing so the court observed that the litigant had not disclosed any facts about the financial condition of her family, and the court  "prima facie" observed that her only aim was to get "compassionate appointment for her son by one way or the other". Stating that it could have imposed Rs 50,000 as costs on the petitioner, the court said that since compassionate appointment is a benevolent scheme and the petitioner only wanted her son to get appointed, it did not go ahead and impose the cost. 

Justice Nirzar Desai in his order said, "Considering the fact that the purpose and the intention of granting compassionate appointment is to mitigate the hardships and financial difficulties of the family of a deceased employee, which has lost its breadwinner, the petitioner was required to disclose the true and correct facts before this Court, more particularly, when the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment is rejected on the ground that her family is 'Gainfully Employed'. Hence, this Court, prima facie, is of the opinion that the only aim or intention on the part of the petitioner was to get compassionate appointment for her son by one way or the other, i.e. without disclosing the true and correct facts with regard to the financial condition of her family and therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of suppression, itself".

The high court further said that when a person is seeking compassionate appointment, he or she is expected to state the "true and correct facts about the financial condition of his / her family, as the same is one of the vital aspects to be taken into consideration, while deciding an application for compassionate appointment".

It said that in the present case the "petitioner appears to have concealed the facts with regard to the financial condition of her family". 

"The system or policy of compassionate appointment is introduced in most of the organizations with a pious intention to provide immediate relief to the bereaved family of an employee, who passed-away in harness and therefore, such a policy or system cannot be permitted to be misused by anyone. This Court could have imposed costs of Rs.50,000/- on the petitioner for suppression of material facts, but, considering the fact that the compassionate appointment is a benevolent scheme and the only intention on the part of the petitioner was to secure compassionate appointment on behalf of her son, this Court refrains itself from imposing any costs on the petitioner," it added. 

The petitioner's late husband  was working as Administrative Officer with the Respondent-Life Insurance Corporation and he passed away while in service leaving behind his bereaved wife–petitioner, a son, who at the relevant point of time was 23 years old, and a daughter who, at that point of time, was about 22 years old and was pursuing her MD in Pharmacology.

According to the petitioner, LIC has framed regulations, known as Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, as per which relaxation is given in favour of near relatives of an employee, who passed away, while in service, or retires at least five years prior to the date of his superannuation.

Pursuant to her's husband's death  the petitioner made an application seeking terminal benefits and compassionate appointment for her son who was major at that point of time. This was rejected  on the ground that the family members of the petitioner are already gainfully employed.

She made a request for reconsideration however the same was also rejected; against this she moved the high court

The high court after noting the arguments found that the wife of the late employee had preferred the plea seeking "compassionate appointment on behalf of her son, who is major and who has neither made any such application to the Respondents for granting compassionate appointment to him"; nor did he approach the high court challenging the orders which rejected his mother's application.

"...thus, the present petitioner has no locus to file the present petition, since, the petitioner has no right to claim compassionate appointment on behalf of her son, who is major. Therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of locus, itself, apart from the other grounds, which I shall discuss in the ensuing paragraphs," the court said. 

With respect to suppression of material facts as to the financial condition of the petitioner's family the court said, there was not a single line in the petition to indicate the family's financial condition. It said that though, the family of the petitioner has received around Rs.1,85,00,000 towards terminal benefits and they are getting monthly pension of about Rs.45,000/- per month, whereas, the daughter of the petitioner is also getting Rs.84,000/- towards stipend.

It said that this fact came to the light only when, the Respondents filed a reply.

Referring to various decisions of the apex court the high court said that even if, the petitioner's case is considered, the fact remains that her family had received about terminal benefits and was getting family pension and her daughter was also monthly stipend. The court thus said that the "overall picture of the financial condition" of the petitioner's family appeared to be "strong" and hence it cannot be said that it will be difficult for her family members to maintain themselves.

The court thus dismissed the plea. 

Case title: RAMILABEN VITTHALBHAI JAMBU Versus LIC INDIA & ORS.

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 38