$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11032/2017 SUMITRA DEVI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. R.K. Shukla, Advocate.

versus THE CHAIRMAN CUM M D ORIENTAL INS CO LTD AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rahul Ranjan Verma, Advocate for R-1 to 3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 20.01.2026

1. The Petitioner is the widow of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar, who was employed as Sub Staff with the Respondent-Company and died in harness on 1^st November, 2011. Claiming severe financial hardship, the Petitioner seeks compassionate appointment for her son Ashish Kumar, who attained majority thereafter.

2. The Petitioner relies upon the Respondents’ communication dated 12^th January, 2017, calling upon her to submit the request in the prescribed format. However, by a subsequent communication dated 22^nd March, 2017, the Respondents declined the request on the ground that compassionate appointment was not permissible for deaths occurring between 1^st June, 2002 and 31^st October, 2014, and that the relevant scheme applied prospectively from 1^st November, 2014.

3. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner contends that the Respondents ought to have exercised relaxation in her favour and, having invited the application in January 2017, cannot now resile from the same.

4. Per Contra, the Respondents, in their Counter-Affidavit, disclose that the Petitioner had, in fact, made a request for compassionate appointment shortly after the demise of her husband, i.e., on 7^th December, 2011. The said request was duly processed and was forwarded by Respondent No. 2 to the competent office. The regional office, by way of internal communication, informed Respondent No. 2 that as per the existing guidelines, there was no provision for compassionate appointment in respect of deaths occurring on and after 1^st June, 2002.

5. It is further stated that the Petitioner was instead entitled to monetary compensation/ex-gratia under the applicable policy. Accordingly, her request for compassionate appointment was rejected vide communication dated 14^th December, 2011, and she was thereafter advised on 14^th February, 2012 to apply for ex-gratia in the prescribed format.

6. In view of the above, the Respondents argue that the Petitioner has deliberately suppressed the material correspondence of 2011–2012, including the rejection of her request and the advice to seek ex-gratia compensation, and has filed the present petition solely relying upon the subsequent communication dated 12^th January, 2017, thereby attempting to mislead this Court.

7. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Bank & Ors. v. Promila & Anr.,¹ which reiterates the settled legal position governing compassionate appointments and the limited scope of judicial interference where the policy does not support the claim.

8. The Court has considered the aforesaid contentions. At the outset, it is noted that the Petitioner has not made a candid disclosure of the material correspondence exchanged immediately after the demise of her husband. The record shows that her representation dated 07^th December, 2011 seeking compassionate appointment was duly considered and rejected on 14^th December, 2011. However, the petition has been filed in a manner that creates an impression as if no decision was taken on her request until the communication dated 12^th January, 2017, which is not borne out from the record.

9. On merits, the rejection dated 14^th December, 2011 clearly records that under the prevailing guidelines, there was no provision for compassionate appointment in cases where death occurred on or after 1^st June, 2002. The Petitioner was, however, given the option of receiving monetary compensation/ex-gratia in lieu of compassionate appointment, and was thereafter advised vide communication dated 14^th February, 2012 to apply for the same in the prescribed format. The Petitioner chose not to avail the said benefit and instead approached this Court in 2017 placing reliance upon th