Rajasthan HC orders AVVNL to pay 25% of daughter-in-law's salary to mother-in-law
Synopsis
The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that a compassionate appointee cannot walk away from the family-maintenance commitment she made to secure the job. AVVNL must now deduct 25% of her monthly salary and pay it to her mother-in-law for life — a judgment that turns a welfare scheme's undertaking into a court-enforced payroll obligation.
Key Takeaways
The Rajasthan High Court ordered AVVNL to deduct 25% of a compassionate appointee's monthly salary for her mother-in-law for the duration of the mother-in-law's lifetime.
The woman was appointed after her husband, an AVVNL Technical Helper , died in March 2017 ; she had signed an affidavit to maintain the family at the time of appointment.
The petition was filed by the in-laws in 2018 ; the father-in-law died during proceedings.
Justice Anand Sharma held that compassionate appointment is a family welfare measure, not a personal entitlement, and the maintenance undertaking was central to the grant.
Terminal benefits of the deceased employee must be released within 30 days and split equally between the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law.
The Rajasthan High Court has directed Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (AVVNL) to deduct 25 per cent of the monthly salary of a woman employed on compassionate grounds and deposit the amount directly into her mother-in-law's bank account — a ruling that reaffirms the family-welfare basis of compassionate appointment policies. The order was passed in Jaipur on 23 September 2026.
Background: How the Case Began
The woman's husband, who was employed as a Technical Helper with AVVNL, died in March 2017. Following his death, the widow secured a compassionate appointment — a scheme designed to provide employment to a family member of a deceased government employee to ease financial hardship. The appointment was made after her in-laws provided a No Objection Certificate (NOC), and the woman herself submitted an affidavit at the time, undertaking to maintain and financially support the other members of the family.
The petition, originally filed by the in-laws in 2018, alleged that the daughter-in-law subsequently left the matrimonial home, remarried, and stopped providing any financial support to them. The woman's father-in-law passed away during the course of the proceedings.
What the Court Said
A single-judge bench of Justice Anand Sharma observed that compassionate appointment is not an individual entitlement but a welfare measure intended to address the financial distress of a deceased employee's entire family. According to Advocate Ramit Pareek, the court held that the undertaking to maintain family members was a significant basis on which the appointment was granted. Withdrawing from that obligation after receiving the benefit of the scheme, the court noted, would undermine the very purpose of the compassionate appointment policy.
The counsel representing the daughter-in-law argued that she had left the matrimonial home due to alleged mistreatment, and contended that the mother-in-law has two other sons who are capable of providing financial support. It was further argued that the salary earned through the compassionate appointment should be treated as the woman's personal income. The court considered these submissions but ruled in favour of the petitioner.
Key Directions Issued
AVVNL has been directed to deduct 25 per cent of the woman's monthly salary and deposit it into the mother-in-law's bank account. Crucially, this arrangement will continue for the lifetime of the mother-in-law. The court also directed that the terminal benefits of the deceased employee be released within 30 days and divided equally between the mother-in-law and the daughter-in-law.
Broader Significance
This ruling adds to a growing body of case law that treats compassionate appointments as conditional benefits carrying enforceable family obligations, not unconditional personal entitlements. Notably, courts across India have increasingly scrutinised cases where beneficiaries of compassionate employment have failed to honour the maintenance commitments that formed the basis of their selection. The judgment signals that utilities and public-sector employers may be drawn into enforcing such obligations through payroll mechanisms when voluntary compliance fails.
Point of View
And the affidavit of maintenance is not mere paperwork — it is an enforceable obligation. What is striking is the court's choice to use the employer, AVVNL, as the enforcement mechanism, effectively converting a welfare commitment into a standing payroll deduction. This sets a precedent that could prompt public-sector utilities across India to build maintenance-undertaking compliance checks into their HR systems. The harder question the ruling leaves unanswered is how courts should weigh a beneficiary's claim of mistreatment against the maintenance duty — the daughter-in-law's allegations were noted but did not alter the outcome, which may face challenge on appeal.
NationPress
23 Sept 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Rajasthan High Court order in the AVVNL compassionate appointment case?
The Rajasthan High Court directed AVVNL to deduct 25% of the monthly salary of a woman employed on compassionate grounds and deposit it into her mother-in-law's bank account for the remainder of the mother-in-law's lifetime. The court also ordered the deceased employee's terminal benefits to be released within 30 days and divided equally between the two women.
What is a compassionate appointment and why does it come with obligations?
A compassionate appointment is a welfare measure under which a family member of a deceased government or public-sector employee is offered employment to ease the financial burden on the family. The appointee typically signs an undertaking to maintain and support other dependent family members, and courts have held that this undertaking forms a key basis for granting the appointment.
Why did the in-laws approach the High Court?
The in-laws alleged that their daughter-in-law, after securing the compassionate appointment with their NOC and signing a maintenance affidavit, later left the matrimonial home, remarried, and stopped providing financial support to them. The original petition was filed in 2018; the father-in-law passed away during the proceedings.
What arguments did the daughter-in-law's counsel make?
Her counsel argued that she had left the matrimonial home due to alleged mistreatment, that the mother-in-law had two other adult sons who could support her, and that the salary from the compassionate appointment should be treated as her personal income. The court considered these submissions but ruled against her.
What is the broader impact of this ruling on compassionate appointment cases?
The judgment reinforces that maintenance commitments made at the time of compassionate appointment are legally binding and enforceable through the employer. It could prompt public-sector utilities and other government bodies to use payroll deductions as a mechanism to ensure compliance when beneficiaries default on their maintenance obligations.
