LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. & Ors. vs. Anusree K.B.

Civil Appeal · 2022 INSC 1051Decided 30 Sept 2022
Civil Appeal No. 6958 of 2022
M.R. Shah · Krishna Murari

Background

The respondent's father, an employee of the appellant company, died in service in 1995. At that time, his widow (the respondent's mother) was herself employed and so was ineligible for compassionate appointment. Fourteen years later, the daughter (the respondent), who was a minor at the time of her father's death, applied for compassionate appointment on attaining majority. Her application was rejected, first on the ground that her name was not on the dependents' list (later found factually incorrect), and later, after a court-ordered reconsideration, on the ground that her mother's employment meant the family had not lost its sole breadwinner, and that 24 years had elapsed since the death. The Kerala High Court, both at the Single Judge and Division Bench level, directed the company to reconsider her case favourably.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court reiterated settled law that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general constitutional rule of open, merit-based public recruitment, is a concession rather than a right, and exists solely to rescue a family from sudden financial destitution following the death of its sole breadwinner, not to provide a job to a family member as such. Since the respondent's mother was employed at the time of the father's death, the family was never left destitute, and by the time of the litigation, 24 years had passed since the death, defeating the very purpose (urgent relief from sudden crisis) that compassionate appointment is meant to serve. The Court held both the Single Judge and Division Bench erred in directing reconsideration, set aside the High Court's judgment, and allowed the appeal.

Lesson Learnt

Compassionate appointment is meant only to provide urgent relief to a family suddenly left without a breadwinner and without means of livelihood. It is not available as of right, and long delay (here, 14 to 24 years) or the surviving parent's own employment at the time of death can defeat an otherwise sympathetic claim.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case