Supreme Court to Decide if Grandson of Deceased Employee is Eligible for Compassionate Appointment

The top court is set to examine whether the grandson of a project-affected person can claim a compassionate job, following a recent push for inclusive family definitions in welfare schemes.

The Supreme Court has agreed to determine if the grandson of a deceased employee is eligible for a compassionate appointment, marking a potential expansion of the definition of a family unit under state welfare policies. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and V Mohana issued a notice to the Chhattisgarh government, seeking a response within four weeks regarding a plea filed by petitioner Ankit Pandey.

Expanding the Scope of Dependent Kin

The case centers on whether the benefits of rehabilitation schemes, typically reserved for immediate next-of-kin, should extend to the son of a married daughter. While the court has previously established that a dependent married daughter is eligible for employment when her father dies in harness, this new legal challenge seeks to test the boundaries of that precedent.

Counsel for the petitioner, Abhinav Shrivastava, argued that his client is unfairly excluded from the state’s rehabilitation scheme for project-affected persons. He pointed out that the Chhattisgarh government had previously granted such an appointment to another individual who was similarly placed—the son of a daughter of a project-affected person. The petitioner contends that since the state has a policy that acknowledges a daughter’s son as part of the family in other instances, he should be granted equal treatment.

The Legal Framework for Compassionate Employment

This development follows a broader judicial trend of revisiting exclusionary service rules. Recent rulings have emphasized that denying benefits to married daughters—while permitting them for sons—is often arbitrary and unconstitutional, violating the principles of equality under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The judiciary has increasingly held that marital status should not serve as a valid ground for disqualification if the individual otherwise fulfills the criteria of a dependent family member.

However, the Supreme Court simultaneously maintains that compassionate employment is not an automatic vested right. In a separate recent judgment, a bench including Justices AS Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and AG Masih clarified that such appointments are strictly relief measures designed to bail a family out of immediate financial destitution. The court noted that these measures are contingent upon existing government policies and cannot be claimed as an entitlement without satisfying the specific requirements laid down by the relevant state authorities.

A Question of Policy

For now, the focus remains on the interpretation of the Chhattisgarh government’s specific rehabilitation scheme. The current policy includes the spouse, children, and dependent parents of a project-affected person, but explicitly leaves out married daughters and their children. As the Supreme Court prepares to hear the matter, the state’s response will be critical in determining whether the interpretation of "family" must evolve to include grandchildren in cases where the primary beneficiaries are unable to serve or have passed away.