Gujarat High Court Rejects Plea for Compassionate Appointment, Emphasizes Policy Integrity

 

Gujarat High Court Rejects Plea for Compassionate Appointment, Emphasizes Policy Integrity
By Abhishek Jat, Advocate

In a significant ruling, the Gujarat High Court has underscored that the compassionate appointment policy cannot be misused for personal gain. The court dismissed a petition filed by a mother seeking compassionate employment for her adult son from the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC), holding that the petitioner lacked the locus standi to file such a claim and had suppressed material facts regarding her family’s financial condition.

Case Background

The petitioner’s husband, an Administrative Officer at LIC, passed away in 2022 while in service. He was survived by his wife, a 23-year-old son, and a 22-year-old daughter pursuing her MD in Pharmacology. Following her husband’s demise, the petitioner applied for terminal benefits and sought a compassionate appointment for her son. However, LIC rejected her request, citing that the family members were already gainfully employed.

Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner filed a representation seeking reconsideration, which was also denied. She then approached the Gujarat High Court, challenging LIC’s decision.

Court’s Analysis and Decision

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Nirzar S. Desai dismissed the petition, emphasizing two critical grounds:

1. Lack of Locus Standi: The court noted that the petitioner’s son, for whom the compassionate appointment was sought, had neither applied for the position nor challenged LIC’s decision. The court held that the petitioner had no legal right to claim compassionate employment on behalf of her adult son.
2. Suppression of Material Facts: The petitioner failed to disclose her family’s financial condition in her application. It was revealed during the proceedings that the family had received approximately ₹1.85 crores in terminal benefits and a monthly pension of ₹45,000. Additionally, the petitioner’s daughter was receiving a stipend of ₹84,000. The court observed that the financial condition of the bereaved family is a paramount consideration for granting compassionate appointments, as established by the Supreme Court in Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 290).

The court remarked that the petitioner’s sole intention appeared to be securing a job for her son, bypassing the true purpose of the compassionate appointment policy, which is to provide immediate relief to families facing financial hardship.

Key Observations

• Purpose of Compassionate Appointment: The court reiterated that compassionate appointments are designed to alleviate the financial distress of families who lose their sole breadwinner. It is not a hereditary right or a means to secure employment for adult children.
• Misuse of Policy: The court emphasized that the compassionate appointment policy, being a benevolent scheme, must not be misused. It noted that the petitioner’s family was financially stable, and there was no evidence of hardship warranting such an appointment.
• Suppression of Facts: The court highlighted the importance of transparency in such applications. Suppression of material facts, especially regarding financial status, is a valid ground for dismissal.

Conclusion

The Gujarat High Court’s decision in Ramilaben Vitthalbhai Jambu v. LIC India serves as a reminder of the integrity and purpose behind compassionate appointment policies. The ruling reinforces that such policies are not a means to secure employment for adult children but are intended to provide immediate relief to families in genuine financial distress.

The court’s refusal to impose costs, despite the petitioner’s suppression of facts, reflects its recognition of the benevolent nature of the scheme. However, the judgment sends a clear message that misuse of such policies will not be tolerated.

 

Case Title : Ramilaben Vitthalbhai Jambu v. LIC India,

Citation:  Special Civil Application No. 6349 of 2023, decided on 03-03-2025.