Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for State of West Bengal VS Debabrata Tiwari...
2023 2 Supreme 612 : The Supreme Court has held that the doctrine of laches applies to claims for compassionate appointment under Article 226 of the Constitution, even though there is no statutory limitation period. The Court emphasized that the High Court, in exercise of its discretionary writ jurisdiction, does not ordinarily assist the ''''tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic.'''' Inordinate delay, especially when unexplained and coupled with the creation of third-party rights, may disentitle a petitioner from relief. The Court noted that in the present case, the Respondents-Writ Petitioners delayed approaching the High Court for nearly ten years after submitting their applications in 2005-2006, and this delay, even if partly attributable to the State authorities, disentitled them from relief. The Court stressed that the sense of immediacy inherent in compassionate appointments—aimed at providing urgent financial assistance to families of deceased employees—has been lost due to the prolonged delay. The Court further observed that the object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief, and a claim made after such a long lapse, when the family has already managed to survive without the appointment, cannot be entertained. The Court cited its earlier decisions in Moon Mills Ltd. vs. M. R. Meher and State of M.P. vs. Nandlal Jaiswal to affirm that delay, particularly when it results in injustice to third parties or frustrates the very purpose of the policy, is a valid ground for refusing relief. The Court also emphasized that mere submission of an application does not ''''arrest time,'''' and a stale claim cannot revive simply because a writ petition is filed later.Checking relevance for Canara Bank VS Ajithkumar G. K. ...
2025 0 Supreme(SC) 309 : The Supreme Court judgment addresses the issue of delay in compassionate appointment claims, stating that while lapse of time can be a factor in denying such appointments—especially when claims are lodged belatedly, as a presumption arises that the family is no longer in immediate financial distress—it should not be the sole ground for rejection if the delay is due to the claimant''''s diligent pursuit through proper channels. The Court emphasized that the respondent''''s delay was not attributable to fault on his part, as he had been actively pursuing the claim before the employer and the High Court. The Court ruled that even though the death occurred in 2001 and the decision was made in 2025, the claim could not be dismissed solely on the grounds of time. The judgment also clarified that the mere passage of time does not bar consideration of the merits if the claimant acted in good faith and without fault. Furthermore, the Court stressed that the primary objective of compassionate appointment—mitigating immediate financial hardship due to sudden death or incapacitation—must be assessed at the time the need arises, not at the time of judicial decision. However, the Court ultimately denied the compassionate appointment based on the finding that the family was not in acute financial distress at the time of the claim. The judgment thus establishes that delay is not an automatic bar, but must be evaluated in light of the claimant''''s conduct and the ongoing presence of financial distress.Checking relevance for State Of Rajasthan VS Umrao Singh...
1994 0 Supreme(SC) 966 : The Supreme Court held that once a candidate accepts an appointment on compassionate grounds, the right to consideration under the compassionate appointment scheme is consummated, and no further consideration for a higher post on the same ground can arise, as it would lead to ''''endless compassion''''. In this case, the respondent was appointed as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on compassionate grounds and accepted the appointment; therefore, he could not subsequently claim a further consideration for appointment as Sub-Inspector. The Court also addressed delay, noting that a 112-day delay in filing a special appeal was condoned due to administrative exigencies, and that failure to condone such delay resulted in grave injustice. The Court emphasized that the High Court erred in directing further consideration under the proviso to Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants (Dying while in Service) Rules, 1975, as the scheme had already been exhausted upon acceptance of the initial appointment. The judgment relied on State of Haryana v. Naresh Kumar Bali, where a similar principle was applied: once a compassionate appointment is accepted, no second or further claim can be made, even if the candidate is eligible for a higher post.Checking relevance for Malaya Nanda Sethy VS State of Orissa...
2022 5 Supreme 453 : The Supreme Court has held that authorities must consider and decide applications for compassionate appointment as per the prevailing policy, at the earliest, but not beyond a period of six months from the date of submission of completed applications. The Court emphasized that delay or inaction by the department in processing such applications is unacceptable, as it defeats the very purpose of compassionate appointments. It further ruled that when there is no fault on the part of the applicant and the delay is entirely due to departmental inaction, the applicant should not be made to suffer. The Court directed that the appellant''''s application, originally filed in July 2010, be reconsidered under the 1990 Rules, and if eligible, he should be appointed as Junior Clerk. The judgment underscores that granting a premium to departmental delay would be unjust, and that compassionate appointments must be processed fairly, reasonably, and without frivolous or extraneous grounds for rejection.Checking relevance for National Hydroelectric Power VS Nanak Chand...
2004 7 Supreme 691 : In claims for compassionate appointment, there should not be any delay in application, and the fact that the ward was a minor at the time of the father''''s death is not a valid ground for delay unless the scheme itself specifically provides that a minor, upon attaining majority, may apply without time constraints. The Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment, while an exception to merit-based recruitment, cannot be claimed as a matter of right and must be made without undue delay. The impugned judgment allowing appointment after a 10-year delay was not sustainable.
