1. Claim for compassionate appointment after long delay following death of employee. Petition dismissed as time-barred. (Para 1 , 2 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 494
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
ANAND SHARMA, J.
Amar Singh Meena S/o Late Shri Chhail Bihari Meena – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16236 of 2024
Decided On : 12-03-2026
Important Points
Compassionate appointment is a humanitarian exception for immediate financial relief, not a vested right. Prolonged, unexplained delays create a presumption that the financial crisis has been overcome, making such belated claims unsustainable as they would otherwise create an impermissible parallel mode of public recruitment.
Subject
Service Law - Compassionate Appointment
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16 and 21 - Compassionate appointment - Nature and Scope - Not a matter of right nor an alternative mode of recruitment - Narrowly carved exception to general rule of public employment intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee to mitigate unforeseen financial crisis and prevent starvation - Appointments must be made promptly to relieve family from immediate destitution; undue delay defeats the very object of the scheme (Paras 9 and 10).
(B) Compassionate appointment - Delayed claims - If a family survives for a long period after the demise of the employee, it is presumed that the immediate financial crisis no longer exists - Prolonged delay, whether attributable to the claimant or administrative inaction, dilutes the sense of immediacy - Granting such appointment after considerable lapse of time would be treating it as a matter of inheritance based on succession, which is impermissible and contrary to constitutional mandates (Paras 11, 12 and 13).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought compassionate appointment following the death of his father, who was a teacher. The father died in 2013 when the petitioner was a minor. Although the mother was offered an appointment on compassionate grounds shortly after the death, she did not join. The petitioner, after attaining majority, applied for the appointment in 2022. The respondents rejected the claim on the grounds that it was barred by time.
Findings of Court:
The claim for compassionate appointment is barred by inordinate and unexplained delay and is unsustainable in law. The fact that the family survived for several years indicates that the immediate financial crisis no longer exists.
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 financial crisis and cannot be invoked years after the death of the employee. A prolonged delay creates a strong presumption that the family has overcome the initial hardship. Granting such appointment after a long lapse of time would convert a humanitarian exception into a vested right and a parallel mode of recruitment, violating the constitutional mandate of equal opportunity in public employment.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
(B) Compassionate appointment - Delayed claims - If a family survives for a long period after the demise of the employee, it is presumed that the immediate financial crisis no longer exists - Prolonged delay, whether attributable to the claimant or administrative inaction, dilutes the sense of immediacy - Granting such appointment after considerable lapse of time would be treating it as a matter of inheritance based on succession, which is impermissible and contrary to constitutional mandates (Paras 11, 12 and 13).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought compassionate appointment following the death of his father, who was a teacher. The father died in 2013 when the petitioner was a minor. Although the mother was offered an appointment on compassionate grounds shortly after the death, she did not join. The petitioner, after attaining majority, applied for the appointment in 2022. The respondents rejected the claim on the grounds that it was barred by time.
Findings of Court:
The claim for compassionate appointment is barred by inordinate and unexplained delay and is unsustainable in law. The fact that the family survived for several years indicates that the immediate financial crisis no longer exists.
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 financial crisis and cannot be invoked years after the death of the employee. A prolonged delay creates a strong presumption that the family has overcome the initial hardship. Granting such appointment after a long lapse of time would convert a humanitarian exception into a vested right and a parallel mode of recruitment, violating the constitutional mandate of equal opportunity in public employment.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
- constitutional law
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mahendra Sharma
For the Appellant : Mahendra Sharma
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued denial of compassionate appointment was arbitrary and violative of Article 21. Respondents contended claim was hopelessly barred by time. (Para 4 , 6 )
3. Compassionate appointment is an exception to public employment, intended only for immediate financial crisis. Delay defeats its purpose. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 14 )
4. Prolonged and unexplained delay creates presumption that financial crisis is over. Belated claims for compassionate appointment are unsustainable. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )
5. Writ petition dismissed. Claim for compassionate appointment held barred by inordinate and unexplained delay. (Para 17 , 18 )
6. Can a claim for compassionate appointment be sustained after a long and unexplained delay?
No. Prolonged delay defeats the very object of the scheme as it creates a presumption that the immediate financial crisis no longer exists. (Para 9 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
7. Is compassionate appointment a vested right or a matter of inheritance?
No. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right nor an alternative mode of recruitment. It is a narrow exception to the rule of public employment. (Para 9 , 11 , 14 )
8. What is the primary purpose of compassionate appointment?
The purpose is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis caused by the death of the breadwinner. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
9. Does the filing of a representation or application arrest time for the purpose of claiming compassionate appointment?
No. A mere submission of a representation does not give rise to a fresh cause of action or stop the running of time. A dead cause of action cannot be revived. (Para 13 )
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 Teacher Grade-III 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 Chhail Bihari Meena, father of the petitioner was working on the substantive post of Teacher Grade-III in Government Primary School, Chodhriya District Jaisalmer. However, he expired on 18.04.2013 while in service. At the time of death of father of the petitioner, he was aged about 13 years only.
3. After death of petitioner's father, vide order dated 16.06.2014, the mother of the petitioner (widow of deceased employee) was offered appointment on compassionate ground on the post of Class IV Employee by the respondents, but she did not join her duties.
4. After attaining the age of majority, the petitioner submitted application dated 01.07.2022 through his mother seeking appointment on compassionate ground along with all other documents. The said application was forwarded vide letter dated 07.12.2022 by the Divisional Joint Director (School Education) to the Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan. However, claim of the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground was dismissed by the respondents vide orders dated 26.03.2024 and 30.04.2024. 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. Perusal of the material on record would reveal that claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been declined by the respondents for the reason that the claim of the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground was hopelessly barred by time.
7. The relevant facts, which are not in dispute, disclose that the deceased employee died in harness on 18.04.2013 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.
8. 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.
9. At the outset, it must be reiterated that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, nor an alternative mode of recruitment. It constitutes a narrowly carved exception to the general rule of public employment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, intended solely to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee who dies in harness, leaving the family in sudden penury. The underlying purpose is to mitigate an unforeseen financial crisis and to ensure that the family is not
