In Brief
A widow's daughter sought compassionate appointment after her mother was empaneled under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme but rejected solely for exceeding age limits. The High Court dismissed her plea, reasoning that the family had survived for over ten years and thus faced no immediate necessity. The Supreme Court held that mere survival duration cannot be the primary ground for rejection—consideration must include how the family survived (by hardship or other difficult means). Exercising Article 142 jurisdiction for complete justice, the Court modified the High Court's judgment and directed that the daughter be considered for compassionate appointment, given the peculiar circumstances.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.