Delay in seeking compassionate appointment negates the right to discretionary relief.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 20^th day of February, 2026 The petitioner states that he has applied for appointment on compassionate grounds, on the death of his uncle Sri. A Raghavan. The application was not properly considered and the petitioner therefore lost opportunity to get a job. Therefore, the petitioner seeks compensation of ₹50 lakhs with interest.

2. The petitioner states that the deceased uncle Sri. A. Raghavan was unmarried. The deceased had three brothers and all of them died without any successors. The petitioner is the son of his sister, who also died leaving two children including the petitioner. Since the petitioner was the only claimant as the dependent of the deceased, he applied for compassionate appointment with supporting documents.

His application has been arbitrarily rejected.

3. The respondent entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The respondent submitted that though the petitioner had secured judgment dated 10.09.2006 in O.P. No.32885/1999 directing that in case no action had been taken in the matter, he may produce a copy of the judgment before the respondent, in which event appropriate action in accordance with law would be taken within a further period of four months, he could not secure appointment. This was because, under the Rules in force at the time when his uncle died in harness, he was not an eligible dependant for compassionate appointment.

4. After long 16 years since the judgment was pronounced, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking compensation of ₹50 lakhs along with interest. The fact that the petitioner remained indolent, without making any serious effort till the passing of long 16 years and until he turned 57 years of age before filing this writ petition, reveals that there is no genuine intention on his part to get a job but to extract only monetary gains.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent.

6. Sri. A. Raghavan died while in service on

17.08.1985. The petitioner is seeking compassionate appointment. Though the petitioner filed O.P. No.32885/1999, it was disposed of only on 09.10.2006 with a direction to the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court in the year 2022 seeking compensation of ₹50 lakhs along with interest for denial of compassionate appointment.

7. The long delay in approaching this Court after 2006 by itself disentitles the petitioner from getting any discretionary relief from this Court. Furthermore, the prayer for compensation of ₹50 lakhs with interest, is a monetary claim and the petitioner will have to approach the appropriate Forum for getting such reliefs.

A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. The writ petition is hence dismissed.

Sd/-