1. Writ petition for compassionate appointment after death of employee mother. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 594
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANAND SHARMA, J.
Manthan Kumar, S/o. Mahender - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan, through its Secretary, Education Department – Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3594 of 2026
Decided On : 06-03-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Nakul Bansal Advocate on behalf of Mr. Kamalesh Sharma Advocate.
For the Petitioner:Mr. Nakul Bansal Advocate on behalf of Mr. Kamalesh Sharma Advocate.
Compassionate appointment is a narrow exception to provide immediate financial relief, not a vested right. Prolonged, unexplained delay in claiming it creates a presumption that the initial financial crisis has been overcome, rendering the claim unsustainable as it violates the constitutional mandate of equal opportunity in public employment.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16 and 21 - Compassionate Appointment - Nature and Scope - Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, nor an alternative mode of recruitment, but a narrowly carved exception to the general rule of public employment intended solely to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee to mitigate an unforeseen financial crisis and ensure subsistence (Paras 9, 11).
(B) Delay in Claiming Appointment - The rationale of the scheme is to relieve the family from immediate destitution; therefore, appointments must be made promptly. Undue delay defeats the very object of the scheme, rendering such claims unsustainable (Paras 10, 11). Where a family survives for a long period after the demise of the employee, it is presumed that the immediate financial crisis no longer exists and the sense of immediacy is lost (Paras 12, 13).
(C) Constitutional Mandate on Public Employment - Granting compassionate appointment after prolonged delay would amount to converting a welfare-oriented exception into a regular source of employment, thereby violating the constitutional mandate of equal opportunity in public employment and treating a humanitarian exception as a vested employment entitlement (Paras 12, 15).
Facts of the case:
A writ petition was filed seeking compassionate appointment following the death of the petitioner's mother, who was a government teacher and died while in service. The petitioner was a minor at the time of the death. An application was initially submitted by a guardian to preserve the petitioner's rights until the attainment of majority, which was dismissed. Upon attaining majority, the petitioner submitted a fresh application for appointment on compassionate grounds, which was subsequently rejected by the respondents.
Findings of Court:
The claim for appointment on compassionate grounds is hopelessly barred by time. The fact that the family managed to subsist for several years after the death of the employee clearly indicates that the immediate financial crisis, which alone justifies such an appointment, no longer exists.
Issues: 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.
Ratio Decidendi: Compassionate appointment is an exception designed to meet a transient crisis and cannot be invoked years after the death of the employee. Since it is not a vested right or a source of permanent recruitment, a prolonged lapse of time dilutes the sense of immediacy required for such relief. Granting such appointment after a significant delay would be contrary to the Constitution as it transforms a humanitarian exception into a matter of inheritance or a parallel mode of recruitment.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claims arbitrary denial; respondents cite lack of relaxation order and delay. (Para 4 , 6 )
3. Claim barred by inordinate and unexplained delay; immediate financial crisis no longer subsists. (Para 14 )
4. Compassionate appointment is an exception to general recruitment; delay defeats its purpose. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 13 )
5. Writ petition dismissed; no illegality or arbitrariness in rejecting belated claim for compassionate appointment. (Para 17 , 18 )
6. Is compassionate appointment a vested right that can be claimed at any time?
No, compassionate appointment is not a vested right and cannot be claimed after a lapse of time when the crisis is over. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
7. What is the effect of prolonged delay on a claim for compassionate appointment?
Prolonged delay creates a presumption that the family has overcome the initial financial hardship, defeating the purpose of the scheme. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
8. What is the primary purpose of a compassionate appointment scheme?
The primary purpose is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee to tide over a sudden financial crisis. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
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 mother, who was serving as Senior Teacher (Science) 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 Smt. Bharti Jagarwal, mother of the petitioner was working on the substantive post of Senior Teacher (Science) in a Government Senior Secondary School at Sanod, Nasirabad, District Ajmer. However, she expired on 11.11.2007 while in service in an incident of dowry death. At the time of death of mother of the petitioner, he was aged about 2 years only.
3. After death of petitioner's mother, FIR No. 167/2007 was lodged and father of the petitioner was prosecuted and taken into judicial custody. Thereafter, the petitioner was taken under guardianship by his maternal grandfather and the petitioner remained under care, custody and guardianship of his maternal grandfather. Vide letter dated 17.12.2007, Respondent No. 5 required maternal grandfather to submit an application for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, maternal grandfather submitted an application dated 15.01.2008 along with an affidavit stating that since the petitioner was minor, therefore, his rights for compassionate appointment be preserved till the date of attaining majority. However, the said application came to be dismissed vide letter dated 28.07.2008 by Respondent No. 5.
4. Upon attaining the age of majority, the petitioner submitted an application dated 14.03.2024 seeking appointment on compassionate ground. However, claim of the petitioner seeking appointment 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.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the material on record.
6. Perusal of the material on record would reveal that claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been declined by the respondents for the reason that in the absence of relaxation order, the relief of appointment on compassionate ground cannot be granted. Be that as it may, this Court is of the view that the claim of the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground is hopelessly barred by time.
7. The relevant facts, which are not in dispute, disclose that the deceased employee died in harness on 11.11.2007 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.
8. 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.
9. At the outset, it must be reiterated that compassionate appointm
