Supreme Court Makes Key Observations on Compassionate Appointments
The Supreme Court has made significant remarks regarding compassionate appointments, stating that such jobs should be granted only to those who face extreme financial hardship due to the death of a family member. The court emphasized that these appointments are meant for individuals who lack the basic means of sustenance and not merely because a deceased employee's family sees a decline in their standard of living.
The court clarified that the purpose of compassionate appointments is to provide employment only in cases where the deceased employee was the sole breadwinner, and the family is struggling to survive financially. The bench, comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, made these observations during the hearing of a petition.
The case involved an employee of Canara Bank who passed away in 2001 before his retirement. His son, Ajith Kumar, applied for a job under the compassionate appointment scheme, but the bank authorities rejected his request. Challenging this decision, he approached the High Court, which ruled in his favor, directing the bank to provide him employment within two months and pay ₹5 lakh in compensation.
Following this order, Canara Bank authorities approached the Supreme Court. During the hearing, the Supreme Court reiterated that compassionate appointments are not an automatic entitlement but a measure to support families facing dire financial distress due to the loss of an earning member.
