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