No 'Endless Compassion'; Compassionate Appointment Claim Can't Be Made Dehors Policy & After Inordinate Delay: Himachal Pradesh High Court - 2025-07-25

HP High Court: Compassionate Appointment is Not a Vested Right, Cannot be Claimed After 15 Years

Shimla: The Himachal Pradesh High Court, reinforcing the strict parameters for compassionate appointment, has dismissed an appeal by a woman who sought a government job 15 years after her mother's death. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma , held that such claims are not a source of recruitment and cannot be entertained after an inordinate delay, especially when the application was filed outside the mandatory time limit prescribed by the governing policy.

The court also found that the appellant had approached the court with "unclean hands" by presenting distorted facts about her application timeline.

---

Background of the Case

The appellant, Khubwati, is the daughter of Late Smt. Heera Devi, who was a Peon with the state government and passed away in service on June 20, 2009. Under the applicable Compassionate Appointment Policy of 1990, a dependent was required to apply for a job within three years of the employee's death.

Khubwati's claim for compassionate appointment was repeatedly rejected by the state authorities, first in 2013 and on three subsequent occasions. The primary ground for rejection was that her first application was received on March 20, 2013, which was beyond the three-year deadline that expired on June 19, 2012. Khubwati eventually challenged the rejection orders of 2014 and 2022 by filing a writ petition in 2022, which was dismissed by a Learned Single Judge on grounds of being time-barred. She then filed the present intra-court appeal (LPA).

Key Arguments Presented

Appellant's Contentions: - Ms. Khubwati argued that she had submitted her first application on January 4, 2010, well within the three-year window. -

She contended that the principle of delay and laches should not be invoked against her as she was continuously making representations to the authorities. -

Relying on the precedent in Mamta Devi vs. State of H.P. , she asserted her right as a married daughter to be considered for the appointment. -

She also argued for relaxation of the time limit, similar to the provision available for minors under the policy.

State's Contentions: - The State vehemently denied ever receiving the alleged 2010 application, stating that official records showed the first application was made in 2013. -

It was argued that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and cannot be claimed dehors the applicable policy, which mandates a three-year time limit without any provision for relaxation in this case. -

The State counsel highlighted that the appellant had allowed the first rejection order of 2013 to attain finality by not challenging it, and her subsequent representations could not revive a stale claim. -

It was submitted that "there cannot be endless compassion," and the immediacy of the financial crisis, which is the object of the policy, had long passed.

Court's Analysis and Ruling

The High Court meticulously analyzed the factual and legal matrix, upholding the Single Judge's decision. The Bench made several crucial observations:

On Delayed and Stale Claims: The court noted that the first rejection occurred in 2013, but the writ petition was filed only in 2022. Citing the Supreme Court's mandate in S S Rathore vs State of Madhya Pradesh , the Bench held that successive representations do not extend the cause of action. The court stated, "Once the cause of action accrued to the appellant on issuance of the first rejection order on 10.06.2013... she chose to make representations, one after the other... will neither give rise to fresh cause nor will it revive the cause of action."

On the Alleged 2010 Application: The court found no evidence to support the appellant's claim of having applied in 2010. It deprecated her conduct, observing, "The conduct of the appellant in placing distorted facts or twisted facts... with intention to seek favorable orders or to mislead this Court, is sufficient to disentitle the appellant."

On Rights of Married Daughters: While acknowledging the Mamta Devi judgment that established the rights of married daughters, the court distinguished it from the present case. It clarified that the benefit of that judgment applies only to those who have applied within the stipulated time limit. The court emphasized that being a married daughter does not confer an ipso facto right if the fundamental condition of timely application under the policy is not met.

On Relaxation and Parity with Minors: The court rejected the plea for relaxation of the time limit, noting that the 1990 policy did not permit it. It also dismissed the comparison with minors, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Himachal Pradesh vs Shashi Kumar , which held that major and minor dependents at the time of an employee's death constitute two different classes and cannot be equated for parity.

Final Decision

The High Court concluded that the appellant had failed to establish any infringement of her legal rights under the governing policy. The claim was time-barred, pursued after significant delay, and the original purpose of compassionate appointment—to tide over an immediate financial crisis—was lost after 15 years.

The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the Single Judge was upheld, cementing the principle that compassionate appointment is a concession, not a right, and must be sought strictly within the confines of the established rules and timelines.