'Compassionate Appointment Can't Be Stretched To Absurd Levels' : Supreme Court Rejects Plea Of Man With 33 Acres & HIG House

The Supreme Court on June 17 dismissed a special leave petition challenging the Rajasthan High Court's order dismissing a writ petition filed by the petitioner to seek a compassionate appointment. 

A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manmohan rejected the plea of the petitioner and questioned how a compassionate appointment in such a case could be sought.  

Justice Bhuyan questioned: "You can't stretch compassionate appointments to absurd limits. You are the son of the Principal Commissioner, Central Excise. Where is the question of a compassionate appointment?"

Justice Manmohan remarked: "Madam, you have a residential house by way of 33 acres of land. You have a HIG house in Jaipur, your annual income from agriculture is...., and you are getting Rs 5,000....

Order: "We don't find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order. Dismissed on grounds of delay and merits."

It is the case of the petitioner that his father was working as Principal Commissioner (Central Excise) with the Central Excise Commissionerate, New Revenue Building, Jaipur, before he expired while in service on August 27, 2015.

Subsequent to his death, the plea of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected, including by the Tribunal, on the grounds that the family pension of Rs. 85,000 was being received by the mother. It was also stated that the family owns a residential house in a village, 33 acres of agricultural land and a HIG house in Jaipur. 

Against this, the petition approached the Rajasthan High Court, where his plea was also rejected.

Case Details: RAVI KUMAR JEPH v. JOINT DIRECTOR AND ANR.|Diary No. 25916-2025

Related - 26 Principles Relating To Compassionate Appointment : Supreme Court Explains