DATE: 29/10/2025
COURT: High Court of Rajasthan
BENCH: Justice Farjand Ali
FACTS:
The case arose from a writ petition filed
by the petitioner, the aged father of a deceased government employee, Late
Rajesh Kumar, seeking directions against his daughter-in-law (respondent No. 4)
and the authorities concerned to ensure that she fulfilled her obligation to
maintain and support the family of her deceased husband. The petitioner
requested that fifty percent of respondent No. 4’s salary be deducted and
deposited into his bank account to enable him to sustain himself and his
dependents. Rajesh Kumar, employed as a Technical Assistant under the
respondent department, died in service on 15 September 2015. Following his
death, the petitioner was initially considered for compassionate appointment
under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased
Government Servants Rules, 1996. However, out of goodwill, he recommended that
the appointment instead be granted to his widowed daughter-in-law, respondent
No. 4, who had also applied for the same benefit.
Subsequently, respondent No. 4 received the
compassionate appointment as a Lower Division Clerk on 11 March 2016 after
submitting an affidavit promising to reside with and maintain her in-laws.
However, within eighteen days of her husband’s death, she left the matrimonial
home, began residing with her parents, and later reportedly remarried. The
petitioner alleged that respondent No. 4 failed to provide any financial
assistance despite receiving nearly 70% of the deceased’s compensation and
monthly salary. He contended that she had obtained compassionate appointment by
misrepresenting facts in her affidavit and had breached both legal and moral
obligations toward the deceased’s dependent parents. The department argued that
the matter had been referred to higher authorities and that the petition was
premature, while respondent No. 4 claimed she had been harassed and had no
continuing duty to maintain her in-laws after remarriage.
ISSUES:
The principal issue before the Rajasthan
High Court was whether respondent No. 4, who had secured compassionate
appointment based on an affidavit undertaking to maintain her deceased
husband’s parents, could be legally and morally compelled to provide financial
support to the petitioner after abandoning her in-laws, and whether the
authorities were justified in failing to ensure compliance with such an
obligation under the Rules of 1996.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Rajasthan High Court allowed the writ
petition in part, directing the respondent department to deduct ₹20,000 per month
from the salary of respondent No. 4 and deposit the same directly into the
petitioner’s bank account toward his maintenance, effective from 1 November 2025. The Court held that respondent No. 4’s
conduct in abandoning her in-laws after obtaining compassionate appointment
violated the moral and equitable foundation of the compassionate employment
scheme and that she could not be permitted to enjoy its benefits while
neglecting her obligations.
The Court reasoned that compassionate
appointment is not a vested right or a regular mode of employment but a welfare
measure granted as an act of grace to alleviate the financial distress of the
deceased employee’s family. Such an appointment carries an inherent fiduciary
obligation to use the benefits derived from it for the sustenance of all
dependents of the deceased, including aged parents. The Court observed that
respondent No. 4’s appointment was made solely because of the petitioner’s
magnanimity and her solemn affidavit promising to care for her in-laws, which
formed the very foundation of her appointment. Her subsequent abandonment of
the petitioner and remarriage, coupled with the fact that she retained 70% of
the compensation benefits, amounted to a breach of the trust reposed in her and
undermined the humanitarian objective of the compassionate appointment scheme.
Further, the Court emphasized that the
concept of “dependent family” under the Rules of 1996 is not limited to the
widow but extends to all individuals financially dependent on the deceased
employee. It highlighted that respondent No. 4’s appointment was made in a
representative capacity on behalf of the entire family unit and not as a
personal entitlement based on merit or competition. By accepting the job under
this scheme, she assumed a corresponding moral and equitable duty to maintain
the surviving dependents. Allowing her to retain the benefits while neglecting
them would defeat both the letter and spirit of the scheme and amount to a
fraud upon its benevolent purpose. Hence, to restore equity and uphold the
compassionate object of the Rules, the Court ordered a monthly salary deduction
in favour of the petitioner until his lifetime or further orders of the
competent authority.
ANALYSIS:
The Rajasthan High Court’s decision in this
case underscores the moral and equitable dimensions embedded within the
compassionate appointment framework under the Rajasthan Compassionate
Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996. The
Court recognized that such appointments are not ordinary employment
entitlements but social welfare measures intended to mitigate financial
hardship faced by the deceased employee’s entire dependent family. In this
context, the widow who had obtained the appointment carried a fiduciary duty to
uphold the humanitarian objective underlying the scheme. By abandoning her
in-laws, failing to provide financial support, and allegedly remarrying after
securing the appointment based on an affidavit promising maintenance, she
breached both the moral and legal foundation of her employment. The Court
rightly emphasized that compassionate appointment derives its legitimacy not
from personal merit but from the collective distress of the deceased’s
dependents, thereby requiring the beneficiary to act in trust and fairness
toward them.
The judgment is significant for expanding
the scope of accountability in compassionate appointments. It establishes that
dependents who receive such employment are bound by an ongoing duty to ensure
equitable benefit-sharing among the deceased employee’s family members. The
Court’s directive to deduct Rs.20,000 monthly from the respondent’s
salary demonstrates a proactive approach to enforcing this obligation and
preventing misuse of welfare-based appointments. Moreover, by interpreting the
term “dependent family” broadly, the Court reinforced that compassionate
employment serves as a collective relief mechanism, not a personal entitlement
of one individual. This ruling thus sets an important precedent for balancing
compassion with accountability, ensuring that welfare provisions fulfil their
intended social purpose rather than being exploited for individual gain.
info@adhwaitha.com