A.P.S.R.T.C.MUSHEERABAD vs SARVARUNNISA BEGUM

The Supreme Court held that the provision of compassionate appointment is intended to assist the family of a deceased employee in overcoming financial difficulties, as established in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138. The Court ruled that the respondent, having accepted an additional monetary benefit of Rs.1,00,000/- in lieu of employment, was not entitled to claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right, especially in the absence of any available vacancy. The Court set aside the High Court's order directing her appointment, emphasizing that compassionate employment cannot be granted without assessing the family's financial condition and available vacancies.