Back
2026 Supreme(SC) 917
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARAVIND KUMAR, VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, JJ.
Raspelli Bhagya Kishaiya & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 10589 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7244 of 2026)
Decided On : 12-08-2026
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kumar Abhishek, Adv. Ms. Sadhana Madhavan, Adv. Ms. Kavana Rao, Adv. Ms. G. Sushmitha, Adv. Mr. Sravan Kumar Karanam, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, AOR Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Adv. Mrs. Vinay Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Sarika Suman, Adv. Mr. Aayush Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Vinay Jaiswal, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, but it is a welfare measure intended to provide immediate financial assistance to family of a deceased employee.
(2) Compassionate appointment – Applications seeking compassionate appointment should be considered expeditiously – An otherwise eligible applicant cannot be made to suffer on account of delay/inaction attributable to employer.
Headnote:
(A) Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, but it is a welfare measure intended to provide immediate financial assistance to family of a deceased employee – Scheme should be interpreted in a fair and reasonable manner so that its object is achieved and not defeated – As per, Clause 9.3.4 of NCWA, dependant seeking compassionate appointment should not be more than 35 years of age – Police verification is an important part of process and cannot take place unless claim has already been initiated – If no claim had been made, there was no reason for respondent authorities to direct appellant to undergo police verification – Applications seeking compassionate appointment should be considered expeditiously. (Paras 16, 17, 19, 20 and 21)
(B) Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Claim rejected on the ground of age bar – An otherwise eligible applicant cannot be made to suffer on account of delay/inaction attributable to employer – Dependant who was fully eligible on the date of death and who submitted application within a reasonable period of 6 months cannot be considered ineligible merely because requisite procedural formalities took time, as such an interpretation would defeat very purpose of scheme – Respondent-authorities cannot be permitted to defeat claim of an otherwise eligible dependent by taking advantage of their own delay in processing application – Respondent-authorities directed to reconsider claim of appellant for compassionate appointment by treating him as eligible in age and by examining only remaining conditions under applicable scheme. (Paras 21, 22, 24, 25 and 26)
Facts of the case:
The issue that arises for consideration is whether, in absence of any express stipulation in Clause 9.3.4 of NCWA, age eligibility for compassionate appointment is to be determined with reference to date of consideration of application, or with reference to date on which right to seek compassionate appointment accrued and process stood initiated.
Findings of Court:
Judgment dated 26.11.2025 passed by High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, in Writ Petition No. 2364 of 2024 is set aside.
Result : Appeal allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. relevant date for determining age eligibility under compassionate appointment scheme. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. appellants argue age should be reckoned from death or initiation of process. (Para 12) |
| 3. respondents argue age eligibility is determined at time of application consideration. (Para 13) |
| 4. age eligibility should be determined from date of death or initiation; employer delay cannot prejudice applicant. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. appeal allowed; case remitted for reconsideration treating appellant as eligible in age. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
JUDGMENT :
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This is an appeal assailing the final judgment and order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, in Writ Petition No. 2364 of 2024, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellants challenging the rejection of compassionate appointment of appellant No. 2 was dismissed, on the ground that appellant No. 2 had crossed the age of 35 years prescribed under Clause 9.3.4 of the National Coal Wage Agreement - VI (for brevity “NCWA”) by the date his claim came to be considered.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3. The brief facts of the case are that appellant No. 2 is the son of Late Ruspelli Kistaiya, who served as a Dozer Operator with the respondent–Western Coalfields Limited for nearly 36 years and died in harness on 17.12.2020. On the date of death of the employee, appellant No. 2 was aged 34 years, 10 months and 12 days, his date of birth being 05.02.1986.
4. On 31.12.2020, the respondent–Western Coalfields Limited issued the Standard Operating Procedure (for brevity “SOP”) / Circular Reference No. 1416/2020-21, providing procedure for on-boarding of the dependents of ex-employees under compassionate grounds.
5. Appellant No. 1 (widow) approached the authorities on 03.01.2021 regarding the payment/dues and other service benefits to be received after her husband’s death, on which date appellant No. 2 was aged 34 years, 10 months and 29 days. Appellant No. 3 is the younger son of the deceased employee and has furnished a No-Objection Certificate in favour of appellant No. 2. On 04.01.2021, respondent No. 4 issued a communication, being Reference No. 1211/2020-21, directing appellant No. 2 to undergo police verification for compassionate appointment.
6. Appellant No. 2 completed 35 years of age on 05.02.2021. The police verification and document verification were completed on 11.02.2021 and 25.02.2021, respectively.
7. Thereafter, appellant No. 2 submitted the prescribed pro forma application on 28.05.2021. The respondent-authorities acknowledged the receipt of the submitted formal application on 14.06.2021 as the relevant date.
8. Ultimately on 03.02.2023, the respondent-authorities rejected the claim of appellant No. 2 on the ground that appellant No. 2 had crossed the age of 35 years prescribed under Clause 9.3.4 of the NCWA. The rejection order was communicated to appellant No. 1 on 20.05.2023.
9. Aggrieved thereby, appellant No. 1 filed Writ Petition No. 2364 of 2024 before the High Court.
10. Vide the impugned judgment dated 26.11.2025, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the rejection holding that age had to be reckoned on the date on which the claim of appellant No. 2 was considered, on which date appellant No. 2 had already crossed the age of 35 years prescribed under Clause 9.3.4 of the NCWA.
11. Aggrieved by the impugned final judgment and order of the High Court, the appellants have filed the present appeal.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS
12. Ms. Anitha Shenoy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, made the following submissions:
12.1. The impugned judgment proceeds on an erroneous premise by determining the age eligibility of appellant No. 2 with reference to the date of consideration of the claim, whereas Clause 9.3.4 of the NCWA merely prescribes that the dependent should not be more than 3
