1. Writ petition seeking compassionate appointment upon the death of the petitioner's father, a Corporation driver. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 514
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANAND SHARMA, J.
Ashish, S/o. Late Shri Hari Singh Kudi – Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, through its Chairman – Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4908 of 2026
Decided On : 24-03-2026
Important Points
Compassionate appointment is a humanitarian exception for immediate financial relief, not a vested right. Prolonged delay in claiming such appointment creates a presumption that the family has overcome the initial financial crisis, rendering belated claims unsustainable under public service jurisprudence.
Subject
Service Law - Compassionate Appointment
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16 and 21 - Compassionate appointment - Nature and purpose - Not a matter of right nor an alternative mode of recruitment - Narrowly carved exception to general rule of public employment intended solely to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee who dies in harness to mitigate unforeseen financial crisis and ensure subsistence (Paras 7, 9) - Undue delay defeats the very object of compassionate appointment as the rationale is to relieve the family from immediate destitution; prolonged delay, whether attributable to the claimant or administrative inaction, creates a strong presumption that the family has overcome the initial financial hardship (Paras 8, 11) - Compassionate appointment cannot be converted into a vested employment entitlement or a parallel mode of recruitment as it would violate the constitutional mandate of equal opportunity in public employment (Paras 10, 13).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought a direction to the respondent to grant compassionate appointment following the death of the petitioner's father, a Driver, who died in harness in 2012. The petitioner, who was a minor at the time of the death, applied for the benefit upon attaining majority and acquiring necessary qualifications. The respondent rejected the application on the ground that it was submitted after a lapse of 13 years, whereas the maximum permissible relaxation was 5 years.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner approached the court after a long lapse of time. The ability of the family to subsist for several years after the death of the employee indicates that the immediate financial crisis, which justifies such appointment, no longer exists. The rejection by the respondents was not arbitrary but in adherence to settled legal principles.
Issues: 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.
Ratio Decidendi: Compassionate appointment is an exception designed to meet a transient crisis and cannot be invoked years after the death of the employee. When a family survives for a long period after the demise, it is presumed that the immediate financial crisis has ceased, and subsequent claims are non-maintainable as they would transform a humanitarian exception into a vested right.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought a direction to the respondent to grant compassionate appointment following the death of the petitioner's father, a Driver, who died in harness in 2012. The petitioner, who was a minor at the time of the death, applied for the benefit upon attaining majority and acquiring necessary qualifications. The respondent rejected the application on the ground that it was submitted after a lapse of 13 years, whereas the maximum permissible relaxation was 5 years.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner approached the court after a long lapse of time. The ability of the family to subsist for several years after the death of the employee indicates that the immediate financial crisis, which justifies such appointment, no longer exists. The rejection by the respondents was not arbitrary but in adherence to settled legal principles.
Issues: 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.
Ratio Decidendi: Compassionate appointment is an exception designed to meet a transient crisis and cannot be invoked years after the death of the employee. When a family survives for a long period after the demise, it is presumed that the immediate financial crisis has ceased, and subsequent claims are non-maintainable as they would transform a humanitarian exception into a vested right.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- constitutional law
- practice and procedure
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka Advocate.
For the Petitioners:Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka Advocate.
Table of Contents
2. Denial of compassionate appointment on delayed application was arbitrary and violative of Article 21. (Para 3 )
3. Compassionate appointment is an exception to constitutional equality; prolonged delay negates its purpose of immediate crisis relief. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
4. Belated claims for compassionate appointment are unsustainable as delay creates presumption that financial crisis has passed. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 15 )
5. Writ petition dismissed for unexplained delay; no illegality in rejecting the belated compassionate appointment claim. (Para 15 , 16 )
6. What is the purpose of a compassionate appointment scheme?
It is an exception to standard recruitment, intended solely to provide immediate financial relief to a family facing sudden destitution after a breadwinner's death. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
7. Can a claim for compassionate appointment be sustained after a long delay?
No, a claim is unsustainable after prolonged delay because the family is presumed to have overcome the immediate financial crisis, defeating the scheme's purpose. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 15 )
8. Does a dependent have a vested right to claim compassionate appointment at any time?
No, no vested right accrues merely because of a death in service or the submission of an application; entitlement depends on immediacy of need. (Para 7 , 9 , 11 )
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
