1. Compassionate appointment claim on death of employee driver while industrial dispute pending — termination challenged — family financial hardship alleged. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 653
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANAND SHARMA, J.
Mintu Ram Yadav S/o Late Shri Kanwar Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation - Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15944 of 2025
Decided On : 19-02-2026
Important Points
Compassionate appointment is an exception for immediate financial relief, not a vested right. Claims filed after a prolonged, unexplained delay are unsustainable, as the need for immediacy is lost and granting such appointments would violate the constitutional mandate of equal opportunity in public employment.
Subject
Service Law - Compassionate Appointment
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16 and 21 - Compassionate Appointment - Nature and scope - It is not a matter of right, nor an alternative mode of recruitment, but a narrowly carved exception to the general rule of public employment 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 ensure the family is not left without means of subsistence. (Paras 9 and 15)
(B) Compassionate Appointment - Delay and Laches - The rationale of the scheme is to relieve the family from immediate destitution; thus, appointments must be made promptly. Undue and prolonged delay defeats the very object of the scheme, rendering such claims unsustainable. 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. Compassionate appointment cannot be granted as a matter of course after years have elapsed and such belated claims are generally non-maintainable unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. (Paras 10, 11, 12 and 13)
Facts of the case:
The son of a deceased employee, who had served as a driver, sought appointment on compassionate grounds. The deceased employee had been terminated from service, but an Industrial Tribunal later awarded compensation from the date of termination until the date of death. The employee died in 2013. The petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment in 2019, which was subsequently rejected by the respondents in 2025. The petitioner challenged this rejection by filing a writ petition, arguing that the denial was arbitrary and violative of the right to life.
Findings of Court:
The claim for appointment on compassionate grounds is barred by inordinate and unexplained delay. The fact that the family managed to subsist for several years after the death of the employee indicates that the immediate financial crisis, which justifies such appointment, 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 the settled legal principles governing compassionate appointment under public service jurisprudence. (Para 8)
Ratio Decidendi: Compassionate appointment is a benevolent exception designed to meet a transient crisis and is not a vested right that can be exercised at any time in the future. A prolonged delay in approaching the authorities or the court creates a strong presumption that the family has overcome the initial financial hardship. Granting employment after such a lapse would convert a welfare-oriented exception into a regular source of employment, thereby violating the constitutional mandate of equal opportunity in public employment. (Paras 13, 14 and 15)
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
(B) Compassionate Appointment - Delay and Laches - The rationale of the scheme is to relieve the family from immediate destitution; thus, appointments must be made promptly. Undue and prolonged delay defeats the very object of the scheme, rendering such claims unsustainable. 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. Compassionate appointment cannot be granted as a matter of course after years have elapsed and such belated claims are generally non-maintainable unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. (Paras 10, 11, 12 and 13)
Facts of the case:
The son of a deceased employee, who had served as a driver, sought appointment on compassionate grounds. The deceased employee had been terminated from service, but an Industrial Tribunal later awarded compensation from the date of termination until the date of death. The employee died in 2013. The petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment in 2019, which was subsequently rejected by the respondents in 2025. The petitioner challenged this rejection by filing a writ petition, arguing that the denial was arbitrary and violative of the right to life.
Findings of Court:
The claim for appointment on compassionate grounds is barred by inordinate and unexplained delay. The fact that the family managed to subsist for several years after the death of the employee indicates that the immediate financial crisis, which justifies such appointment, 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 the settled legal principles governing compassionate appointment under public service jurisprudence. (Para 8)
Ratio Decidendi: Compassionate appointment is a benevolent exception designed to meet a transient crisis and is not a vested right that can be exercised at any time in the future. A prolonged delay in approaching the authorities or the court creates a strong presumption that the family has overcome the initial financial hardship. Granting employment after such a lapse would convert a welfare-oriented exception into a regular source of employment, thereby violating the constitutional mandate of equal opportunity in public employment. (Paras 13, 14 and 15)
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- constitutional law
- practice and procedure
Advocates Appeared:
For Petitioner:Mr. Mahender Singh Yadav Advocate
For Petitioner:Mr. Mahender Singh Yadav Advocate
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner asserts entitlement to compassionate appointment to prevent family starvation; respondents deny claim, citing death occurring when employee was not in active employment. (Para 2 , 4 , 6 )
3. Claim is hopelessly time-barred; family's survival for years negates immediate financial crisis; compassionate appointment cannot be granted after prolonged, unexplained delay. (Para 7 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
4. Compassionate appointment is an exception to recruitment rules, justified only by immediate financial crisis; prolonged delay defeats its purpose and renders claim unsustainable. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
5. Writ petition dismissed; rejection of compassionate appointment was not arbitrary; no relief granted. (Para 17 , 18 )
6. Is compassionate appointment a vested right that can be claimed after a long delay?
No. It is an exception to recruitment rules, intended to provide immediate relief. Prolonged delay defeats its purpose and creates a presumption that the family's financial crisis has ended, making the claim unsustainable. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
7. Does the death of the employee while not in active employment affect a compassionate appointment claim?
Yes, as the scheme applies to employees dying in harness. The court noted the employee was not in active employment at death, but the primary ground for dismissal was the delay. (Para 6 , 9 )
8. Can courts grant compassionate appointment after years have passed since the employee's death?
No, unless exceptional circumstances are shown. The sense of immediacy is lost, and granting it would convert the exception into a regular source of recruitment, violating equal opportunity principles. (Para 13 , 15 , 16 )
9. Does the filing of an application for compassionate appointment arrest delay for seeking judicial remedy?
No. Mere submission of an application does not stop time; the claimant must diligently pursue the matter. Failure to do so for years amounts to laches and disentitles relief. (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 Driver 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 Kanwar Singh, father of the petitioner was working on the substantive post of Driver in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. However, on 24.07.2006, while driving the bus of the Corporation, father of the petitioner met with an accident and suffered injuries. Therefore, father of the petitioner could not join duties. Thereafter, on 23.11.2006, father of the petitioner suffered burn injuries on account of blast of LPG Cylinder. However, father of the petitioner was terminated from service by the respondents vide order dated 22.06.2007. Feeling aggrieved, father of the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8971/2007 which was dismissed on 29.10.2007 on the ground of availibility of alternative remedy. Thereafter, father of the petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the Appropriate Government to the Industrial Tribunal & Labour Court, Alwar (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Industrial Tribunal').
3. However, during pendency of the reference before the Industrial Tribunal, father of the petitioner died on 27.10.2013, leaving behind his widow, one son (the petitioner) and three daughters. Industrial Tribunal vide its award dated 11.09.2019 answered the reference in favour of the workman-father of the petitioner and held him entitled for 50% of the salary payable to the deceased-workman as compensation from the date of termination till the date of death of the workman along with continuity of service.
4. The respondent challenged the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 422/2020 which was dismissed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.12.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application to the respondents on 30.09.2019 seeking appointment on compassionate ground. However, vide order dated14.07.2025, application filed by the petitioner seeking appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground was dismissed by the respondents. 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 at the time of death of father of the petitioner, he was not in active employment of the respondents. Be that as it may, this Court is of the view that the claim of the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground is hopelessly barred by time.
7. The relevant facts, which are not in dispute, disclose that the deceased employee died in harness on 27.10.2013 several years prior to the fil
