Mere Pendency Of Criminal Case Not Ground For Denying Compassionate Appointment: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that mere pendency of criminal case cannot be a ground for denying compassionate appointment and the discretion with the employer to grant appointment must be exercised objectively.

It further held that the character certificate given by the District Magistrate holds some weightage in considering a person's application for compassionate appointment.

Noting the decision of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, Justice Ajit Kumar held,

“Looking to the directions/ guidelines issued by the Supreme Court as above, I find that though there is no indefensible right vested in the candidate to seek appointment while he is implicated in the criminal case but mere pendency of criminal case itself cannot be a ground to generally deny appointment to a candidate more especially in a case of compassionate appointment. Thus, it becomes a so discretion of the employer to exercise power in offering appointment but exercise the same objectively.”

Petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment was rejected on grounds that a criminal case was pending against him and that the same will be considered only after acquittal in the case. Thereafter, another order was passed stating that the character certificate issued by the District Magistrate had a rider that it was subject to the outcome of the criminal case and therefore the same could not be considered.

Relying on Avtar Singh v. Union of India, counsel for petitioner argued that there was no criminal history and criminal case was only because of long standing enmity between families, petitioner's claim was liable to be considered.

Observing that the aim of compassionate appointment was to provide immediate financial assistance to the family, the Court held

“If the appointment is deferred only for flimsy grounds or only on the ground that the employer does not find in its discretion it to be appropriate to issue appointment order and to defer it for a long period to wait till the final outcome of the criminal trial, the very purpose and object to provide compassionate appointment would get defeated.”

The Court observed that the petitioner's father died leaving a widow, 2 sons and married daughter. Since neither the widow, nor the sons were gainfully employed and were solely dependent on the deceased, the Court held that the character certificate should have been given some weightage which was valid on the date of seeking appointment. It held that in such case the petitioner should have been granted appointment to help the family.

The Court held that though in regular appointments the rules are stricter and candidate with criminal case pending against him/her can be singled out, a more pragmatic approach must be taken in case of compassionate appointment.

The Court held that where character certificate has been issued by the DM, mere pendency of criminal case should not lead to rejection of compassionate appointment.

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed directing the authority to pass fresh orders.

Case Title: Mahesh Kumar Chauhan v. State Of Up And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 289 [WRIT - A No. - 947 of 2024]

Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 289

Click Here To Read/Download Order