Compassionate appointment claims must be made promptly after the employee's death, as excessive delays negate entitlement due to changes in financial circumstances, establishing that such appointments are not vested rights.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. The instant application for review has been filed qua a judgment and order dated 28.08.2024 passed by this Court in WP(C)/4254/2024. Since there has been a substantial delay in presenting the application for review, the accompanying I.A.(Civil)/1944/2025 has been filed for condonation of delay.

2. For better understanding of the issue involved, a brief background of the case may be stated.

3. The writ petition WP(C)/4254/2024 was filed with a prayer for appointment on compassionate ground. It was projected that the father of the writ petitioner was working as a Grade-IV employee in the Assam Secretariat and had died on 01.04.2014. The petitioner had made an application for appointment on compassionate ground which was stated to be considered by the State Level Committee on 18.05.2016 and thereafter, the matter was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner for further examination. The petitioner had filed subsequent representation in the year, 2023 and the writ petition was instituted thereafter in the year 2024.

4. This Court, after hearing the parties had passed the aforesaid judgment and order dated 28.08.2024 and the primary consideration for the decision was the undisputed fact that the government employee had died in the year 2014 and in the meantime, more than a decade had passed. This Court had also relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. AIR 2023 SC 1467 . The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

5. Long after the judgment was delivered on 28.08.2024, the present application for review was filed on 03.04.2025 along with the I.A. (Civil)/1944/2025 for condonation of delay.

6. It is no longer res integra that a Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India exercises plenary jurisdiction in which the power of review is inbuilt. In this regard, one may gainfully refer to the case of M.M. Thomas vs. State of Kerala and Ors. (2000) 1 SCC 666 wherein the following observations were made:

“14. The High Court as a court of record, as envisaged in Article 215 of the Constitution, must have inherent powers to correct the records. A court of record envelops all such powers whose acts and proceedings are to be enrolled in a perpetual memorial and testimony. A court of record is undoubtedly a superior court which is itself competent to determine the scope of its jurisdiction. The High Court, as a court of record, has a duty to itself to keep all its records correctly and in accordance with law. Hence, if any apparent error is noticed by the High Court in respect of any orders passed by it the High Court has not only power, but a duty to correct it. The High Court’s power in that regard is plenary. In Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra a nine-Judge Bench of this Court has recognised the aforesaid superior status of the High Court as a court of plenary jurisdiction being a court of record.”

In a subsequent case of Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai & Anr. v. Pratibha Industries Ltd. & Ors. (2019) 3 SCC 203 , similar views were expressed.

7. Since the High Court Rules prescribe for a period of limitation of a month for preferring a review, the accompanying I.A. has been filed.

8. I have heard Ms. D. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri G. Bokolial, learned State Counsel.

9. Ms. Ghosh, the learned counsel has submitted that there are sufficient reasons for which the review petition could not be filed in time and therefore, the delay is required to be condoned. On the merits of the review, it has been argued that the decision of the Hon’ble Sup