Compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate financial relief to a family in crisis; therefore, a claim made after a prolonged delay is unsustainable as the objective of immediate amelioration is extinguished.

Judgment On Board

13.8.2026

1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

I. to quash/set aside the letter/order dated 16/11/16 passed by the respondent no. 4 (Annexure P/4).

II. to direct the respondents authority to consider the case and grant the compassionate appointment to the petitioner.

III. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and the cost of the petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner.

2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s father, namely Jagat Ram Darro who was working on the post of Chainman under respondent department died in harness on 20.5.2000. He further submits that application was moved by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment before the respondent authorities on 6.10.2016 and the respondent No. 4 rejected the same vide order dated 16.11.2016 on the ground of delay. He contends that petitioner was aged about four years when her parents expired and she moved application immediately after attaining majority. He further contends that respondent authorities ought to have taken lenient view while considering the case of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. He prays to allow this petition.

3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that petitioner’s father died on 20.5.2000 and petitioner moved application in the year 2016 therefore the respondent No. 4 rightly rejected the application on the ground of delay. He further submits that this petition deserves to be dismissed.

4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record.

5) Admittedly, father of the petitioner, who was working under the respondent authorities died in harness on 20.5.2000 and petitioner was a minor back then. Be that as it may, since the death of government servant occurred on 20.5.2000, cause of action arose in the year 2000 whereas the daughter of the deceased employee moved application in the year 2016 and preferred this petition seeking compassionate appointment in the year 2018.

6) In the matter of State of Maharastra and another Vs. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate , ¹AIROnLine 2022 SC 471, Hon’ble Supreme Court held at paragraph Nos. 7 & 8 as under :

"7. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased.

7.1. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, to appoint the respondent now on compassionate ground shall be contrary to the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground. The respondent cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased employee, i.e