Back
2026 Supreme(Raj) 471
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
ANAND SHARMA, J.
Ashish Kumar S/o Late Shri Rohtash Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3722 of 2026
Decided On : 13-03-2026
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Compassionate Appointment
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Delay in claiming appointment - Rationale of the scheme is to relieve the family from immediate destitution caused by the death of the sole breadwinner - Undue delay defeats the very object of the scheme and renders such claims unsustainable (Paras 9, 10).
(C) Presumption of financial stability - When a family survives for a long period after the demise of the employee, it is presumed that the immediate financial crisis no longer exists - Belated claims convert a humanitarian exception into a vested employment entitlement, which is impermissible in law (Paras 11, 12).
Facts of the case:
The son of a deceased employee, who died in harness in 2018, sought compassionate appointment. The application was rejected by the respondents on the grounds arising from succession proceedings regarding family pension and service benefits. The petitioner approached the court after a substantial and unexplained lapse of time.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the claim is barred by inordinate and unexplained delay. The fact that the family managed to subsist for several years indicates that the immediate financial crisis, which justifies compassionate appointment, no longer exists. Granting such relief would run counter to the law and violate the constitutional mandate of equal opportunity in public employment.
Issues: Whether a claim for compassionate appointment can be sustained after a long and unexplained delay and whether such a claim survives settled legal principles governing compassionate appointment under public service jurisprudence.
Ratio Decidendi: Compassionate appointment is designed to meet a transient crisis and cannot be invoked years after the death of the employee. Prolonged delay creates a strong presumption that the family has overcome the initial financial hardship; therefore, belated claims are non-maintainable as they would transform a welfare-oriented exception into a parallel mode of recruitment.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
For the Appellants : Ravi Kumar, Surendar Meel
JUDGMENT :
ANAND SHARMA, J.
1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of direction to the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner on account of the death of the petitioner’s father, who was serving as Constable with the respondents. The petitioner contends that the family suffered financial hardship upon the demise of the deceased employee and that the denial of compassionate appointment is arbitrary and unjust.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Late Shri Rohtash Singh (Belt No. 648), father of the petitioner was working on the substantive post of Constable with 8th Battalion, B Company, Rajasthan Armed Constabulary (IR), Gazipur, New Delhi. However, he expired on 31.01.2018 while in service, leaving behind his widow, one son (petitioner) and two daughters.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that deceased father of the petitioner initially married with one Smt. Krishna on 13.07.1986 and out of that wedlock, one son, namely, Shri Naveen was born. However, the said marriage could not subsist for long and was dissolved by obtaining divorce from village panchayat. Thereafter, deceased father of the petitioner solemnised second marriage with mother of the petitioner, namely, Smt. Kamlesh Devi @ Adari Deb on 18.12.1991. Out of the said wedlock, three children, i.e., the petitioner and two daughters were born.
4. It is further contended that after death of deceased- employee, Smt. Krishna (first wife of deceased-employee) and Shri Naveen (son born out of first marriage) initiated succession proceedings before the concerned court wherein ultimately, succession certificate in respect of family pension and service benefits was granted in their favour by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kharkhoda, Sonipat vide judgment and decree dated 14.11.2025. The petitioner submitted application seeking appointment on compassionate ground along with all other documents to the respondents but the same has been rejected orally by the respondents on the ground of above succession proceedings. It is pertinent to mention here that being aggrieved by the aforesaid succession proceedings, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh which is pending adjudication. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing instant writ petition. It is submitted that the action of the respondents in declining benefit of appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner is unjustified, unwarranted and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that when the compassionate appointment rules entitles the petitioner for compassionate appointment for saving the family of deceased employee from starvation, there is no justification in not providing the same to the petitioner, dependent of the deceased employee. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for allowing the writ petition as also issuance of direction to the respondents for grant of appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the material on record.
6. The relevant facts, which are not in dispute, disclose that the deceased employee died in harness on 31.01.2018 several years prior to the filing of the present writ petition. It is an admitted position that no immediate claim for compassionate appointment was pursued by the petitioner and the present writ petition has been instituted after a substantial and unexplained lapse of time.
7. The central issue that arises for consideration is whether a claim for compassionate appointment can be sustained after a long and unexplained delay and whether such a claim survives the settled legal principles governing compassionate appointment under public service jurisprudence.
8. At the outset, it must be reiterated that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, nor an a
