DATE: 10/07/2025
COURT: High Court of Delhi
BENCH: Justice Prateek Jalan
FACTS:
The petitioners, the wife and son of Late
Shri Ram Kishan, approached the Delhi High Court seeking a direction to the
Centre for Railway Information Systems (CRIS) to appoint the son (petitioner
no. 1) on compassionate grounds following the death of Shri Ram Kishan, who was
employed with CRIS and died in harness on 03.05.2020. A representation for
compassionate appointment was made by the wife (petitioner no. 2) on
18.08.2020. The petitioners contended that despite fulfilling the requirements
and making a timely request, no compassionate appointment had been offered.
In response, CRIS submitted in its
counter-affidavit that it does not have any standing policy permitting
compassionate appointments. However, it acknowledged that a one-time special
authorization was granted to the Managing Director of CRIS to make such
appointments for dependents of employees who died due to Covid-19. The
petitioners claimed that similarly placed families of deceased employees were
given appointments, but CRIS clarified that the benefit was limited strictly to
Covid-19 death cases, and Shri Ram Kishan had died of non-Covid-related causes.
Medical records and the petitioners’ own representation confirmed that he was
Covid-negative at the time of death, making them ineligible under the special
exemption.
ISSUES:
The central issue in this case was whether
the Centre for Railway Information Systems (CRIS) could be directed to grant a
compassionate appointment to the son of a deceased employee who did not die due
to Covid-19, especially when CRIS had made such appointments only for
dependents of employees who had died due to Covid-19, under a one-time special
authorisation and in the absence of a general policy for compassionate
appointments.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ
petition, holding that in the absence of a general policy on compassionate
appointments, and in light of the specific and limited scope of the one-time
Covid-19-based exception, the petitioners were not entitled to claim such an
appointment. The Court upheld CRIS’s classification and found no arbitrariness
or constitutional infirmity in its decision to restrict the benefit only to
Covid-19 death cases.
The Court reasoned that compassionate
appointment is not a vested right but a narrowly tailored exception to the
constitutional principle of equality in public employment, which is generally
merit-based and competitive. Citing the Supreme Court’s rulings in Tinku v.
State of Haryana and Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K., the Court emphasized that
such appointments must conform strictly to existing rules or policies, and
cannot be granted merely on sympathetic grounds. Since CRIS had no overarching
policy enabling compassionate appointments, and only a limited exception had
been authorized for Covid-19 deaths, no legal right accrued to the petitioners.
Furthermore, the Court held that the
distinction made by CRIS between dependents of employees who died of Covid-19
and those who died of other causes was constitutionally permissible. Relying on
State of Uttarakhand v. Sudhir Budakoti and Rajasthan SRTC v. Danish Khan, the
Court noted that Article 14 does not bar reasonable classification, provided it
is based on intelligible differentia and bears a rational nexus to the policy
objective. In this case, the Court found the differentiation justified due to
the exceptional and widespread impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, which warranted
special relief measures. The classification was aimed at addressing specific
hardship faced by Covid-affected families, and extending such benefits
universally would have significant financial and administrative consequences.
Therefore, the policy decision of CRIS was neither arbitrary nor
unconstitutional.
ANALYSIS:
This case underscores the limited scope and
strict interpretation of compassionate appointments in public employment,
particularly in the absence of a general policy. The Delhi High Court’s
analysis reaffirms the principle that compassionate appointment is not a matter
of right but a policy-driven exception to the rule of open, merit-based
recruitment. The Court’s reliance on recent Supreme Court precedents highlights
that such appointments are permissible only when there is a specific policy in
place, and even then, all eligibility conditions must be met. By rejecting the
petitioners' plea, the Court made it clear that sympathetic considerations
alone cannot override the requirements of a policy or the boundaries set by
law.
The judgment also illustrates how public
authorities can create valid classifications under Article 14 of the
Constitution, as long as there is an intelligible differentia with a rational
nexus to the policy goal. The Court found CRIS’s decision to limit
compassionate appointments to Covid-19 death cases to be a valid, non-arbitrary
classification based on the unique socioeconomic crisis posed by the pandemic.
By treating Covid-related deaths as a distinct category warranting special
intervention, CRIS acted within its administrative discretion. The Court’s
decision affirms that targeted relief measures responding to extraordinary
circumstances like a pandemic can coexist with constitutional equality,
provided they are well-founded and not inherently discriminatory.
info@adhwaitha.com