Supreme Court ruled that opting for full gratuity bars compassionate appointment, as benefit cannot be availed twice.
The Supreme Court ruled that a family member who has already received full gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, is not eligible for compassionate appointment. The Court held that the two reliefs are mutually exclusive, and availing one precludes the other.
In a case arising from a public sector undertaking, the Court observed that compassionate appointments are a form of benevolent relief intended to provide livelihood where no other financial support exists. Where full gratuity has been claimed and accepted, the assumption of economic hardship is negated.
This decision is expected to standardize the processing of compassionate appointments across PSUs and state governments, preventing double availing of benefits and streamlining welfare resource allocation.