Compassionate appointment for the family of a medically invalidated CRPF officer reaffirmed, with a call for a humane perspective in such cases.
In a significant ruling, the Orissa High Court has upheld the compassionate appointment of a CRPF officer's dependent wife, calling for a more empathetic and humane approach in dealing with such cases. The bench, comprising Mr. Dixit Krishna Shripad and Mr. Chittaranjan Dash, delivered the judgment on January 15, 2026, in the case of Union of India v. Sri Ajit Kumar Khuntia.
The case revolves around Ajit Kumar Khuntia, a CRPF police officer who suffered severe physical disability due to a terrorist bomb blast while on duty in Srinagar in 2007. Discharged from service in 2014, Khuntia's wife applied for a compassionate appointment, which was initially denied based on her performance in a written test. The Union Government's appeal against the single judge's order, which had previously favored the couple, was dismissed by the High Court.
The court emphasized that personnel in combat forces like the CRPF face substantial occupational hazards, warranting a liberal interpretation of compassionate appointment schemes. The bench noted that denying a specific post based on a non-mandatory written test violates principles of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution and is subject to judicial review.
The judgment criticized the bureaucratic handling of the case, highlighting that compassionate appointments are not merely privileges but are regulated by statutory policies that require a just and humane approach. The court referenced several Supreme Court rulings to underline that compassionate appointments in armed forces contexts should be treated with special consideration due to the unique risks involved.
While the court refrained from imposing exemplary costs on the appellants, it issued a stern warning that any further delays in compliance would result in costs being levied. The appellants were given eight weeks to implement the order and report compliance.
The judgment serves as a reminder of the sacrifices made by armed forces personnel and the necessity for the State to uphold its welfare responsibilities towards their families in times of need.
Bottom Line:
Compassionate appointment in Armed/Police Forces, especially in cases of disability arising out of occupational hazards, must be approached with a liberal and humane perspective. Denial of a specific post based on a written test, when not legally required, constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record.
Statutory provision(s): Articles 14, 41, 226, 227 of the Constitution of India
Union of India v. Sri. Ajit Kumar Khuntia, (Orissa)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2841092
