Compassionate appointment claims must be filed within stipulated timelines; delay undermines the purpose of relief intended for immediate financial distress and is not a vested right.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner calls in question the order dated 16.01.2023 (wrongly mentioned by the petitioner in the writ petition as well as prayer clause as 16.03.2023) passed by respondent No.1 whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that the claim was made at a belated stage.

2. By filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):-

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to quash the order dated 16-03-2023 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No.1, in the larger interest of justice.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to direct the respondent authority to grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner.

10.3 That this court may kindly direct the respondent authority to pay appropriate compensation for the hardship suffered by the petitioner and his family due to the delay caused by the respondent authority.

10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.”

3. The father of the petitioner was working as a Circle Coordinator ¼eaMy la;kstd½ at Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.). He passed away on 19.02.2005, leaving behind his widow (the petitioner’s mother), the petitioner, and a daughter. At the time of his father’s death, the petitioner was a minor. The petitioner’s mother informed the respondent authorities about her husband’s death and sought compassionate appointment for her son (the petitioner). However, she was not guided about the proper procedure to make the claim. Complicating matters, the father had two wives, and both sought compassionate appointments for their respective sons. The petitioner and his mother personally approached the authorities, who directed them to resolve the dispute between the two wives. Consequently, the petitioner’s mother filed Civil Suit No.A/11/2017 to establish herself as the lawful wife and legal representative of the deceased, which was disposed of on 01.02.2019 by compromise.

4. After attaining majority, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 12.06.2019 along with all relevant documents. The application was rejected on 06.03.2020 on the ground of delay and latches.

5. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed WPS No. 2835/2022, in which Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by order dated 26.04.2022, directed the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner’s claim within three months. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a fresh representation on 03.06.2022.

6. Despite this, the respondents again rejected the petitioner’s claim vide order dated 16.01.2023. It is submitted that neither the petitioner nor his family has received any monetary benefit in lieu of compassionate appointment. The petitioner is unemployed, with no source of income, and the family continues to suffer from severe financial hardship, as the father was the sole earning member.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 16.01.2023 passed by the respondent No.1 is per se illegal, arbitrary, and bad in law. It is submitted that at the time of death of the father of the petitioner on 19.02.2005, the petitioner was a minor, and immediately after attaining the age of majority, the petitioner moved an application for compassionate appointment before the respondent