The Gujarat High Court dismissed a petition filed by a woman challenging the rejection of her son’s compassionate appointment and held that she had no right to claim such appointment on behalf of her son, who is a major. The High Court also took note of the suppression of material fact regarding the family’s financial status.

The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking the quashing and setting aside of the communication/order whereby the application of the petitioner for the grant of compassionate appointment to her son was rejected.

The Single Bench of Justice Nirzar S. Desai asserted, “...I find that the present petition is preferred by the wife of the deceased employee, seeking compassionate appointment on behalf of her son, who is major and who has neither made any such application to the Respondents for granting compassionate appointment to him nor has he come before this Court challenging the impugned orders dated 01.12.2022 and 28.12.2022, whereby, the application and the representation of his mother, i.e. the present petitioner, for grant of compassionate appointment to her son are rejected and thus, the present petitioner has no locus to file the present petition, since, the petitioner has no right to claim compassionate appointment on behalf of her son, who is major.”

Advocate Vaibhav A Vyas represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Nilay H Patel represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

The late late husband of the petitioner, namely Vitthalbhai Jambu, was working as an Administrative Officer with the Respondent-Life Insurance Corporation and he passed away, while in service leaving behind his bereaved wife, i.e. the present petitioner, a son, who at the relevant point of time was 23 years of age, and a daughter, who, at that point of time, was aged about 22 years and was pursuing her MD in Pharmacology.

Pursuant to the death of her husband, the petitioner made an application seeking terminal benefits as well as the compassionate appointment for her son Parth, who was a major / adult then. This application came to be rejected by the Respondents on the ground that the family members of the petitioner were already gainfully employed. The petitioner made a representation to the Respondents with a request to reconsider her request, but the same was rejected. Hence, the present petition was filed before the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the present petition was preferred by the wife of the deceased employee, seeking compassionate appointment on behalf of her son, who is a major and who had neither made such application to the Respondents for granting compassionate appointment to him. The Bench made it clear that in light of such facts, the petitioner had no right to claim compassionate appointment on behalf of her son, who is a major.

The Bench stated that the petition deserved to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts as in the entire petition, not even a single line was devoted by the petitioner to indicate the financial condition of her family, though, the family of the petitioner had received around Rs.1,85,00,000 towards terminal benefits and they were getting monthly pension of about Rs.45,000 per month whereas, the daughter of the petitioner was also getting Rs.84,000 towards stipend.

The Bench said, “Considering the fact that the purpose and the intention of granting compassionate appointment is to mitigate the hardships and financial difficulties of the family of a deceased employee, which has lost its breadwinner, the petitioner was required to disclose the true and correct facts before this Court, more particularly, when the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment is rejected on the ground that her family is ‘Gainfully Employed’. Hence, this Court, prima facie, is of the opinion that the only aim or intention on the part of the petitioner was to get compassionate appointment for her son by one way or the other, i.e. without disclosing the true and correct facts with regard to the financial condition of her family and therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of suppression, itself.”

It was further noticed by the Bench that the overall financial condition of the family emerged to be strong, and therefore, it couldn’t be said that it was difficult for the family members of the petitioner to maintain themselves. “Considering the fact that the system or policy of compassionate appointment is introduced in most of the organizations with a pious intention to provide immediate relief to the bereaved family of an employee, who passed-away in harness and therefore, such a policy or system cannot be permitted to be misused by anyone”, the Bench said.

The Court stated that it could have imposed costs of Rs.50,000 on the petitioner for suppression of material facts, but it refrained from doing so because the compassionate appointment is a benevolent scheme, and the only intention on the part of the petitioner was to secure a compassionate appointment on behalf of her son.

Cause Title: Ramilaben Vitthalbhai Jambu v. LIC India & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025:GUJHC:13817)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Vaibhav A Vyas

Respondents: Advocate Nilay H Patel

Click here to read/download Order


Allahabad High CourtJustice Nirzar S. Desai

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.