Compassionate appointment claims must be submitted within one year post-death; delays negate the relief intended by the scheme, transforming claims into rights, which is not permissible.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Writ Appeal assails the Order, dated 10.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.19214 of 2014, whereby the Writ Petition filed by respondent No.1 herein was allowed, directing the appellants herein to provide employment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds.

2. Heard Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. K.Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the appellants; Sri Srinivas Emani, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the record.

Factual Matrix (in brief)

3. The factual background, necessary for adjudication of this appeal, is as follows:

i) Respondent No.1 herein/writ petitioner (hereafter "the petitioner") claims to have applied for compassionate employment within one year of her husband's death on 02.04.2011, as required by the governing scheme under G.O.Ms.No.687.

ii) It is the case of the appellant-University that the petitioner's first valid application was received on 20.03.2013, beyond the one-year limit, which was duly rejected by a speaking order dated 31.05.2014. The petitioner's subsequent claims of having applied earlier on 15.08.2011 and 20.09.2011 is an afterthought. Further, the forensic examination of the dispatch register reveals that the said entries were subsequently interpolated, thereby demonstrating that the petitioner’s claim is a fabricated attempt to create a false factual foundation. iii) It is the case of the petitioner that she submitted her application through the proper channel i.e., the Senior Scientist & Head, JVRHRS, Malyala on 20.09.2011, within six months of her husband's death. The delay of over three years in forwarding this application to the Head Office was the fault of the authorities, for which she should not be penalized. The petitioner claims that her stand is supported by a subsequent letter from the University dated 05.12.2020, which corroborates her claim.

iv) The learned Single Judge while allowing the Writ Petition held that the delay of more than three years in forwarding the petitioner’s application was entirely attributable to the respondents and could not be a ground to deny her claim; that the petitioner could not be penalized for the administrative lapse committed by the authorities in processing her application; that the University’s subsequent communication dated 05.12.2020 corroborated the petitioner’s assertion regarding timely submission of her application; that the petitioner had indeed submitted her application within the prescribed period.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants raised the following contentions:

4.1 That the very object of the scheme of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief for a family in sudden crisis. An application made two years after the death of the employee on 20.03.2013, completely defeats this object and is time-barred as per the explicit one-year limit under the G.O.Ms.No.687, which governs the scheme.

4.2 That the alleged application dated 20.09.2011 was set up for the first time in the reply affidavit and finds no mention in the original Writ Petition. It is asserted that the said document is fabricated, as the dispatch register contains an interpolated entry at S.No.100-A and the endorsement on the alleged application bears a date of 20.09.2014, not 2011, indicating it was created later.

4.3 That both the Writ Petition and the petitioner’s first affidavit refer only to the representations dated 15.08.2011 and in the year 2012, and there is no mention whatsoever of any application dated 20