Hyderabad: Telangana high court has held that a family which was not in financial distress and managed to sustain itself for several years after the death of a govt employee is not entitled to a job on compassionate grounds. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin delivered the verdict while dismissing an appeal filed by a 25-year-old woman from Warangal. Holding that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right or treated as “largesse,” the court found no merit in the woman’s plea. The petitioner, currently unemployed, had sought appointment on compassionate grounds following the death of her father, a male nursing orderly at MGM Hospital, Warangal, in 2018. After her request was rejected by the authorities, she approached the high court in 2024. A single judge dismissed her plea in Feb this year, observing that compassionate appointments are meant to provide immediate relief to families facing sudden financial crisis. The single judge noted that the family had survived after the employee’s death, indicating the absence of any continuing “dire strait” necessity. Property rightsThe court also clarified that the civil decree obtained by the petitioner as a legal heir after her mother’s second marriage pertained only to property rights and did not confer any entitlement to govt employment.Challenging this order, the petitioner argued before the division bench that she should be considered independently. However, it was pointed out that the family was not in financial distress even at the time of the initial application and was eligible for death and retirement benefits. The bench observed that despite the subsequent remarriage of the petitioner’s mother, the family had managed to sustain itself for about five years before a fresh claim was made. Reiterating that the objective of compassionate appointment is to address immediate hardship, the court agreed with the single judge that the family’s long survival negated such a claim.Second claimIt further held that once the initial application was rejected on valid grounds, a second claim after a delay of over five years could not be entertained. Concluding that the immediate financial crisis had ceased to exist, the division bench upheld the single judge order and dismissed her appeal.
