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 Driver with the respondent-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. 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 Hari Singh, father of the petitioner was working on the substantive post of Driver with respondent-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. However, he expired on 27.05.2012 while in service, leaving behind his family.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of death of father of the petitioner, he was ageing around 6 years. The petitioner is Secondary pass and possessing conductor licence issued by the Regional Transport Officer, Sikar, which was valid up to 17.10.2027. Upon attaining majority, the petitioner submitted an application to the respondent seeking benefit of appointment on compassionate ground. However, said application of the petitioner has been dismissed by Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 06.03.2025 on the ground that application was submitted after lapse of 13 years whereas maximum relaxation of 5 years can be granted. 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.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the material on record.

5. The relevant facts, which are not in dispute, disclose that the deceased employee died in harness on 27.05.2012 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.

6. 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.

7. 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 left without means of subsistence.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushma Gosain & Others vs Union of India & Others, (1989) 4 SCC 468, authoritatively held that compassionate appointment must be provided without delay, as the very rationale of the scheme is to relieve the family from immediate destitution caused by the death of the sole breadwinner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasised that appointments should be made promptly and