In Brief
A state government employee's son applied for compassionate appointment after his father's death. The government required the applicant's family income statement to include the family pension they were receiving. The High Court had held that family pension and other retiral benefits cannot be considered in assessing eligibility. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding that while compassionate appointment is an exception to meritocratic recruitment, the state policy rightly requires consideration of all family income sources—including family pension—when determining if a family is in indigent circumstances. The Court also rejected the application on grounds of unreasonable delay (over seven years from the request to litigation).
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.