Widow Cannot Abandon In-Laws After Availing Compassionate Appointment: Rajasthan High Court Orders 20K Monthly Salary Deduction

The Rajasthan High Court has directed the State to deduct a part of a widow's salary who was appointed on compassionate grounds after her husband's death, and deposit it in the account of her dependent father-in-law, upon finding the fact of her leaving the matrimonial house and deserting the in-laws soon after the husband's death.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali opined that compassionate appointment was not conferred upon an individual in individual capacity, but as a representative of the entire family who was dependent on the deceased. Hence, it carried a corresponding moral and legal obligation to protect the interests of other surviving dependents.

“In this benevolent framework, the expression “family” cannot be interpreted in a narrow or compartmentalized manner so as to mean the widow alone. It necessarily includes all those who were dependent upon the deceased employee at the time of his death namely, the parents, spouse, and children; for they together constitute a composite family unit bound by mutual dependency and shared vulnerability.”

It was the case of the petitioner that after his son's demise, even though he was nominated and selected for compassionate appointment, he voluntarily recommended his daughter-in-law's name for the same.

While claiming the appointment, the daughter-in-law (“DIL”) had filed an affidavit that she would reside with and maintain the parents of her deceased husband and assume full responsibility for the care, maintenance, and well-being of her aged in-laws, who were dependent upon their son.

However, merely after 18 days of the son's death, she left the matrimonial home, and started living with her parents, and eventually re-married. This fact was communicated to the state but without taking this into consideration, appointment was granted to her. Owing to such inaction, petition was filed before the Court by the deceased's father seeking 50% portion of the DIL's salary.

After hearing the contention, the Court highlighted that compassionate appointment was not a vested right, but an act of grace to alleviate financial hardship of the deceased's family. Therefore, it came with an implicit fiduciary obligation that the benefits from such appointment shall be used to sustain the family of the deceased.

The Court further observed, “The respondent No.4, having derived such employment on the strength of her solemn affidavit, cannot now resile from the promise that formed the very substratum of the benefit conferred upon her. To allow her to do so would amount to permitting a fraud upon the compassionate scheme itself”.

It was further held that once the DIL accepted the appointment substituting the father-in-law, who was the original nominee, she stepped into a position of trust. Principle of promissory estoppel applied after she availed the benefit based on the specific assurance due to which the corresponding obligation could not be disowned now.

“From the record, it further emerges that after obtaining compassionate appointment and receiving nearly 70% of the provident fund and compensation amount (Annexure–13), respondent No.4 has abandoned her in-laws and is living elsewhere, reportedly maintaining marital companionship with another person. Such conduct, in the considered view of this Court, is wholly antithetical to equity, conscience, and the solemn undertaking voluntarily made by her.”

In this background, the Court held that the DIL could not be allowed to violate her solemn assurance to maintain her in-laws, nor could she be permitted to avail the benefits of the appointment while neglecting those whose welfare formed the basis for such employment. If such a situation were permitted, it would make a mockery of compassionate employment and erode public confidence in the fairness of administrative benevolence.

Accordingly, the State was directed to deduct Rs. 20,000 from the DIL's salary per month and credit directly to the account of the petitioner (father-in-law) towards his maintenance, for the rest of his life.

Title: Bhagwan Singh v Suptd Engineer Pawas & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 364

Click Here To Read/Download Order