IMPORTANT POINTS
Every State can fix its own eligibility criteria for compassionate appointment as per its policy.
Inordinate delay like more than 7 years against state action in not giving compassionate appointment loses sense if immediacy.
Where a dependant was major at the time of death of the deceased inordinate delay in approaching the court cannot be condoned.

JUDGMENT :

Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.

Leave granted.

2. The present appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in a batch of cases which dealt with the issue of compassionate appointment.

3. The facts, insofar as they are material to this appeal, are thus:

The father of the respondent, who was working as HFO in the Horticulture Department at Kullu, died on 29 March 2005 while he was in service. On 8 May 2007, the respondent submitted an application for compassionate appointment. The application was forwarded by the Deputy Director, Horticulture at Kullu to the competent authorities on 14 September 2007. On 15 January 2008, the Additional Secretary (Horticulture) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh addressed a communication to the Director of Horticulture stating that the income certificate which had been forwarded together with the application did not include the pension which the family was receiving from the Government. Accordingly, the Additional Secretary required that a certificate of income, including pension, should be obtained from the concerned SDM by the applicant.

4. The Writ Petition before the High Court was instituted on 11 May 2015, well over seven years thereafter. The respondent has averred that he had made representations, but to no avail, as a result of which he was eventually compelled to initiate proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court. The High Court consolidated a batch of cases, both Letters Patent Appeals and Writ Petitions for hearing. They emanated from a Policy dated 18 January 1990 framed by the State Government for providing employment assistance on compassionate grounds to dependants of government servants who have died in harness, leaving a family in need of assistance. The High Court, during the course of the judgment, framed as many as nine issues which were in the following terms:

"(i) Whether the amount of family pension and other retiral benefits, received by the family of the deceased-employee, can be included in the family income for denying the compassionate appointment?

(ii) Which date would be relevant for applicability of the Policy - whether the date of death of the employee or the date when the application was presented, for the first time, for seeking employment on compassionate ground or the date on which the application came up for consideration before the Authorities, and whether a claim for compassionate appointment can be decided on the basis of subsequent amendment, when the application was presented prior to such amendment?

(iii) If an applicant was in lis and his case was directed to be reconsidered, whether the claim of such applicant is to be determined as per the policy which was existing at the time of passing the order or as per the policy which was in place at the time of staking claim for the first time or as per the policy existing at the time of consideration?

(iv) Whether the applicant can claim appointment on compassionate ground against a higher cadre, once he had been appointed in the lower cadre?

(v) In case a person is appointed on contract basis, whether he is within his rights to seek appointment on regular basis?

(vi) In a given set of cases, in one case the appointment on compassionate ground has been offered against a Class-IH post and in other case, the appointment has been offered to a Class-IV post, whether it amounts to discrimination?

(vii) Whether a person can claim compassionate appointment after a considerable delay?

(viii) Whether requisite qualification or age can be relaxed?

(ix) In case one or more dependants of a deceased-employee is/are in service, though living separately, whether that can be made a ground to deny compassionate appointment to the other dependant of the deceased-employee?"

5. Insofar as the present appeal is concerned, the State of Himachal Pradesh has contested the decision of the High Court on issues (i) and (vii). Hence, for the purposes of this a