1. Writ petition seeking compassionate appointment after death of father who was a Gardener. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 477
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
ANAND SHARMA, J.
Tanish Meena S/o Late Shri Bala Baksh – Appellant
Versus
Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Jaipur – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4135 of 2026
Decided On : 13-03-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Abhishek Sharma
For the Appellant : Abhishek Sharma
Compassionate appointment is an exception for immediate financial relief, not a vested right or recruitment source. Claims made after inordinate and unexplained delay are unsustainable as the 'sense of immediacy' is lost, and it is presumed the family has overcome the financial crisis.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16 and 226 - Compassionate appointment - Exception to general rule of public employment - Aimed at providing immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee to tide over sudden penury - Not a vested right, nor an alternative mode of recruitment (Paras 7 and 9).
(B) Nature of relief - Entitlement depends on immediacy of need and financial condition at the time of death - Prolonged and unexplained delay defeats the objective of the scheme, as it suggests the family has overcome the initial financial hardship (Paras 8, 10 and 11).
(C) Exercise of writ jurisdiction - Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy or indolent - Unexplained delay in invoking Article 226 may disentitle the petitioner to discretionary relief (Paras 11 and 38).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought compassionate appointment following the death of the father while in service as a gardener. Although an application was submitted shortly after the death, it was rejected by the respondents. The petitioner approached the court after a substantial and unexplained lapse of time seeking directions to grant the appointment.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the family managed to subsist for several years after the death of the employee, indicating that the immediate financial crisis no longer exists. Granting appointment after such prolonged delay would violate the constitutional mandate of equal opportunity by converting a welfare-oriented exception into a regular source of employment.
Issues: Whether a claim for compassionate appointment can be sustained after a long and unexplained delay and whether such a claim survives the legal principles governing compassionate appointment under public service jurisprudence.
Ratio Decidendi: Compassionate appointment is a humanitarian exception designed to meet a transient crisis. Since the entitlement is based on the immediacy of need, a claim made after a considerable period of time is non-maintainable as the sense of immediacy is lost. Such a claim cannot be treated as a matter of inheritance or a vested right, and belated claims are unsustainable if the family has proven capable of sustaining themselves.
Result: Writ petition is dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claimed arbitrary denial; respondents argued delay and lack of immediate financial crisis. (Para 3 )
3. Claim barred by inordinate and unexplained delay; family overcame crisis, negating purpose of scheme. (Para 5 , 6 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
4. Compassionate appointment not a vested right; delay defeats purpose of immediate relief. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
5. Writ petition dismissed; no illegality in rejecting claim. (Para 15 , 16 )
6. Is compassionate appointment a vested right?
No, it is an exception to equal opportunity in public employment, intended only for immediate financial crisis. (Para 7 , 9 )
7. Can a compassionate appointment claim succeed after prolonged delay?
No, prolonged delay creates presumption that the family has overcome the financial crisis, rendering the claim unsustainable. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
8. Does mere submission of an application preserve the right to compassionate appointment indefinitely?
No, a mere application does not arrest time or create a vested right; delay in pursuing the claim is fatal. (Para 11 )
9. What is the legal effect of laches in compassionate appointment cases?
Unexplained delay is a ground to decline discretionary relief under Article 226, as it would be unjust. (Para 11 )
10. Can compassionate appointment be granted years after the employee's death?
No, because the sense of immediacy is lost and the family likely found other means of subsistence. (Para 11 , 12 )
JUDGMENT :
ANAND SHARMA, J.
1. 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 Gardener 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 Bala Baksh, father of the petitioner was working on the substantive post of Gardener with Public Works Department. However, he expired on 10.01.2020 while in service, leaving behind his widow, two sons (including petitioner) and three daughters.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that mother of the petitioner, Smt. Gyarsi Devi submitted an application before the Superintendent, Garden, Public Works Department on 04.03.2020 for the purpose of granting appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground, however, the same was rejected 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.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the material on record.
5. The relevant facts, which are not in dispute, disclose that the deceased employee died in harness on 10.01.2020 several years prior to the filing of the present writ petition. It is an admitted position that though an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground for the petitioner was filed by his mother, but the same was rejected by the respondents and the present writ petition has been instituted after a substantial and unexplained lapse of time.
6. 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.
7. 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 public employment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, intended solely to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee who dies in harness, leaving the family in sudden penury. The underlying purpose is to mitigate an unforeseen financial crisis and to ensure that the family is not left without means of subsistence.
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushma Gosain & Others vs. Union of India & Others, (1989) 4 SCC 468, authoritatively held that compassionate appointment must be provided without delay, as the very rationale of the scheme is to relieve the family from immediate destitution caused by the death of the sole breadwinner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasised that appointments should be made promptly and that the creation of supernumerary posts, if necessary, is permissible to serve the humanitarian purpose of the scheme. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also cautioned that undue delay defeats the very object of compassionate appointment, rendering such claims un
