1. Petition seeking compassionate appointment after father's death in harness; delayed claim rejected by respondents. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 678
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANAND SHARMA, J.
Bharat Singh, S/o. Late Shri Ramesh Chand - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary – Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2637 of 2026
Decided On : 11-02-2026
Important Points
Compassionate appointment is a humanitarian exception for immediate financial relief, not a vested right. Prolonged, unexplained delay in claiming such appointment defeats its purpose, as it presumes the family has overcomes the initial crisis, rendering the claim unsustainable under public service jurisprudence.
Subject
Service Law - Compassionate Appointment
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16 and 21 - Compassionate appointment - Not a vested right or a regular source of recruitment - Narrowly carved exception to the general rule of public employment intended solely to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee to mitigate unforeseen financial crisis and sudden penury (Paras 6 and 8).
(B) Delay and Laches - Compassionate appointment must be provided without delay as the rationale is to relieve the family from immediate destitution - Undue 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 and the sense of immediacy is lost (Paras 7, 9 and 10).
(C) Writ Jurisdiction - High Court in the exercise of its discretionary power under Article 226 does not ordinarily assist the tardy, indolent, or lethargic - Prolonged delay in approaching the court may be regarded as a waiver of remedy and disentitle the petitioner to discretionary relief (Paras 38 and 41).
Facts of the case:
A writ petition was filed seeking a direction to the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner following the death of the petitioner’s father, who was a government employee. The father died in harness in 2015. An application was filed by the petitioner's mother, but it was rejected by the authorities in 2024 on the grounds of inordinate delay, stating that the objective of the scheme had been frustrated and the delay exceeded the permissible limit for condonation.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner approached the court after a substantial and unexplained lapse of time. The fact that the family managed to subsist for several years after the death of the employee indicates that the immediate financial crisis no longer exists. Granting such appointment after prolonged delay would convert a welfare-oriented exception into a regular source of employment, violating the constitutional mandate of equal opportunity in public employment.
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. The entitlement depends on the immediacy of need and the financial condition of the family at the time of death; prolonged delay creates a strong presumption that the family has overcome the initial financial hardship, thus defeating the purpose of the scheme.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
(B) Delay and Laches - Compassionate appointment must be provided without delay as the rationale is to relieve the family from immediate destitution - Undue 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 and the sense of immediacy is lost (Paras 7, 9 and 10).
(C) Writ Jurisdiction - High Court in the exercise of its discretionary power under Article 226 does not ordinarily assist the tardy, indolent, or lethargic - Prolonged delay in approaching the court may be regarded as a waiver of remedy and disentitle the petitioner to discretionary relief (Paras 38 and 41).
Facts of the case:
A writ petition was filed seeking a direction to the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner following the death of the petitioner’s father, who was a government employee. The father died in harness in 2015. An application was filed by the petitioner's mother, but it was rejected by the authorities in 2024 on the grounds of inordinate delay, stating that the objective of the scheme had been frustrated and the delay exceeded the permissible limit for condonation.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner approached the court after a substantial and unexplained lapse of time. The fact that the family managed to subsist for several years after the death of the employee indicates that the immediate financial crisis no longer exists. Granting such appointment after prolonged delay would convert a welfare-oriented exception into a regular source of employment, violating the constitutional mandate of equal opportunity in public employment.
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. The entitlement depends on the immediacy of need and the financial condition of the family at the time of death; prolonged delay creates a strong presumption that the family has overcome the initial financial hardship, thus defeating the purpose of the scheme.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Naveen Dhuwan Advocate.
For the Petitioner:Mr. Naveen Dhuwan Advocate.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claims entitlement to compassionate appointment to prevent family hardship; respondents cite inordinate delay frustrating scheme's object. (Para 2 , 4 )
3. Prolonged unexplained delay defeats immediacy requirement; family's survival indicates financial crisis no longer exists; belated claims unsustainable. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
4. Compassionate appointment is an exception to public employment, not a vested right; must be claimed promptly to address immediate financial crisis. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
5. Writ petition dismissed; rejection of compassionate appointment application not arbitrary or illegal. (Para 14 , 15 )
6. Can a claim for compassionate appointment be sustained after a long and unexplained delay?
No. Prolonged delay negates the sense of immediacy and presumption that the family overcame the crisis; such claims are non-maintainable unless exceptional circumstances exist. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
7. Is compassionate appointment a vested right of the deceased employee's dependants?
No. It is an exception to general recruitment rules, intended to tide over sudden financial crisis; it cannot be claimed at any future time. (Para 6 , 8 , 10 )
8. Does mere death in service automatically entitle the family to compassionate employment?
No. Entitlement depends on immediate financial need at the time of death, not merely on the fact of death. (Para 8 )
9. Can courts entertain writ petitions for compassionate appointment filed after unreasonable delay?
Generally no. Unexplained delay may disentitle discretionary relief under Article 226; mere submission of representation does not arrest time. (Para 10 , 11 )
JUDGMENT :
ANAND SHARMA, J.
1. The 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 (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 Ramesh Chand, father of the petitioner was working on the substantive post of Constable in Police Department. However, father of the petitioner died on 27.09.2015, leaving behind his widow, one daughter and son (the petitioner) who, at that time, was 9 years old only. Mother of the petitioner moved an application before the respondents seeking appointment of the petitioner (minor son of the deceased-employee) on compassionate ground. However, vide order dated 20.12.2024, application filed by mother of 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.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the material on record.
4. The relevant facts, which are not in dispute, disclose that the deceased employee died in harness on 27.09.2015 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 and the present writ petition has been instituted after a substantial and unexplained lapse of time. The respondents have rejected the application filed by mother of the petitioner claiming appointment on compassionate ground for her son, i.e., the petitioner primarily on the ground of inordinate delay stating that the very object of compassionate appointment stands frustrated and further, in view of the instructions of the State Government issued from time to time, matters of compassionate appointment having delay of more than three years cannot be forwarded to the State Government for condonation of delay.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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
