Compassionate appointment depends on the governing scheme, and pending claims may be shifted to a new ex-gratia regime.

Compassionate appointment remains an exception to the constitutional norm of equal public employment and is meant only to relieve immediate financial distress in a bereaved family. It is not a vested right, so entitlement depends on the governing scheme in force at the time the claim is considered. Where the later scheme expressly directs that pending applications be dealt with under the new regime providing ex-gratia relief, the applicant cannot insist on consideration under the earlier scheme merely because the death occurred before the change. A court cannot order appointment contrary to mandatory scheme terms, and the claim had to be assessed only under the new scheme.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent was entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds under the earlier scheme, or whether his pending application had to be considered under the subsequently introduced scheme providing ex-gratia relief.

Analysis: Compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal rule of public employment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and is intended only to relieve immediate financial distress in the bereaved family. Such appointment is not a vested right and cannot be claimed as a matter of course. The controlling scheme governs the claim, and where the scheme specifically provides that pending applications are to be dealt with under the new regime, the applicant cannot insist on consideration under the old scheme merely because the death occurred earlier. A court cannot direct appointment contrary to the mandatory terms of the governing scheme.

Conclusion: The respondent had no enforceable right to appointment under the earlier scheme, and his case was required to be considered strictly under the new scheme.

---