1. Petition for compassionate appointment under Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 9482
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Anand Sharma, J
Janita Kumari – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1516/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vinod Poonia
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vinod Poonia
Compassionate appointment is intended to relieve immediate financial destitution and cannot be claimed as a vested right after a long delay, as prolonged survival of the family presumes the initial financial crisis has been overcome.
Headnote:(A) Compassionate Appointment - Object and Nature - The primary objective of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to the family to tide over a financial crisis caused by the sudden death of the sole breadwinner; it is not a scheme for providing an alternative source of recruitment or a vested right of employment. (Para 11)
(B) Delay and Laches - Effect of prolonged delay - Compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a long lapse of time from the date of death, as prolonged delay creates a presumption that the family has overcome the initial financial hardship, rendering belated claims unsustainable. (Para 12, 13, 14, 15)
Issues: Whether a claim for compassionate appointment can be sustained after a lapse of over a decade from the date of the employee's death, specifically in the context of retrospective application of an amendment allowing married daughters to be eligible.
Act Referred
Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued amended rules include married daughters; rejection on non-retrospectivity ground was contrary to precedent. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
3. Compassionate appointment's object is immediate relief; heavy delay defeats purpose. Claim after 13 years unsustainable. (Para 11 , 12 , 14 , 16 )
4. Compassionate appointment cannot be granted after prolonged delay, as the family is presumed to have overcome hardship. (Para 16 )
5. Writ petition dismissed; no ground to interfere. (Para 17 )
6. Can compassionate appointment be granted after a long delay from the date of death?
No. Prolonged delay creates a presumption the family has overcome the immediate financial crisis, defeating the scheme's purpose. (Para 14 , 16 )
7. What is the primary object of a compassionate appointment scheme?
To provide immediate relief to a family facing financial destitution caused by the sudden death of the sole breadwinner. (Para 11 , 12 )
Order
25/03/2026
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for seeking compassionate appointment under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (for short, 'the Rules of 1996'),
in place of his deceased father, who died on 17.09.2013.
2. It is stated in the writ petition that father of the petitioner was holding the post of Head Constable in 12th Battalion, RAC (IR) and was holding substantive post, however,
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 04:57:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/04/2026 at 12:30:02 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12486] (2 of 6) [CW-1516/2026] while he was in service, on 17.09.2013, he expired all of the sudden. His sudden death caused grave financial crisis in the
family, as he was only the breadwinner in the entire family.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed an application for seeking compassionate appointment on 23.10.2013, however, compassionate appointment was not granted to her on the pretext that the petitioner was married daughter of deceased Lt. Sh. Jai Singh
Poonia.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that vide notification dated 28.10.2021, an amendment has been made in the Rules of 1996, whereby even married daughter of deceased Government servant has been considered as family member and has been held eligible for seeking compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1996. After enforcement of such amendment under the Rules, the petitioner sent reminder letter dated 06.07.2022 to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner in the light of amendment dated 28.10.2021, however, such request of the petitioner was turned down vide letter/order dated 03.01.2024. Petitioner approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1284/2025, which was disposed of vide order dated 07.02.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court granting liberty to the petitioner to submit representation and the
writ petition was permitted to withdraw with such liberty.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that pursuant to the liberty granted by order dated 07.02.2025, the petitioner submitted a representation, however, the representation has been dismissed vide order dated 28.11.2025 on the sole
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 04:57:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/04/2026 at 12:30:02 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12486] (3 of 6) [CW-1516/2026] ground that notification dated 28.10.2021, whereby the Rules of 1996 have been amended, cannot be applied retrospectively so as to cover the cases, where death has taken place wayback in the
year 2013.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in Civil Reference No.01/2022 (Priyanka Shrimali Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), Larger Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, has decided reference, whereby notification dated 28.10.2021 has been directed to be implemented even in the
cases of married daughters.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in the case of Lalita Bai & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17726/2016) decided on 08.03.2023 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, even in the case, where death has taken place prior to notification dated 28.10.2021, in the light of judgment of Priyanka Shrimali (supra), directions were given by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court to consider the candidature of the petitioner in that case for compassionate appointment in view of the notification dated
28.10.2021.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the light of aforesaid judgment, the reasons assigned in order dated 28.11.2025 are not tenable in the eye of law and petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment in place of her deceased
father.
9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused
the record.
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 04:57:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/04/2026 at 12:30:02 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12486] (4 of 6) [CW-1516/2026] 10. Bare perusal of order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the Office of Commandant, 12
