[2026:RJ-JP:6524]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2637/2026 Bharat Singh S/o Late Shri Ramesh Chand, aged about 19 years, R/o Village Ajau, Tehsil Kumher, Dist Bharatpur, Raj.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary, Home Department Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Raj.

2. The Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Lalkothi Jaipur.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Dausa, Raj.

----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Naveen Dhuwan Advocate.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Judgment

11/02/2026

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 pu