In Brief
A state employee's son sought compassionate appointment following his father's death in 2005. The state rejected his application partly because the family was receiving pension. The High Court ruled the state could not consider pension income. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding that while compassionate appointment is an exception to normal recruitment rules, the state's policy for such appointments permits and requires consideration of all family income sources, including pension, when assessing whether the family is in financial hardship. The Court upheld income limits as objective criteria but recommended periodic revision accounting for inflation. However, the applicant's claim was rejected due to excessive delay—over seven years passed before legal action was initiated.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.