[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Rahul Son Of Late Shri Harveer Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jp:31469) on 13 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JP:31469]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5785/2025
Rahul S/o Late Shri Harveer Singh, Aged About 19 Years, R/o
Village And Post Birharu, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through its Joint Secretary
Administration (Group-1), Home Department,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Lalkothi,
Jaipur.
3. Inspector General of Police, Recruitment And Promotion
Board, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. Superintendent of Police, Jhalawar, District Jhalawar,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Gulista Bano
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA
Order
13/08/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the
petitioner against the order dated 14.11.2024 (Annexure-2) and
28.11.2024 (Annexure-3), whereby the respondents have rejected
the application of the petitioner filed for giving an appointment on
compassionate grounds.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of
the petitioner, namely Shri Harveer Singh, had expired on
18.02.2007 while he was serving on the post of Constable in
Rajasthan Police; and that the candidature of the petitioner was
arbitrarily rejected vide letter dated 28.11.2024 (Annexure-3) on
the ground that the application was moved after an inordinate
delay of 17 years and 7 months after the death of his father (the
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:47:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31469] (2 of 9) [CW-5785/2025]
deceased-employee) because the petitioner was still a minor at
the time of the death of his father.
3. Heard the submissions made at bar and also perused the
material available on record.
4. The core issue before this Court is whether the petitioner's
claim for compassionate appointment, filed after a lapse of more
than 17 years and 7 months from the date of death of his father,
i.e., 18.02.2007, warrants acceptance under the relevant service
provisions and whether the reasons recorded in the letter dated
28.11.2024 (Annexure-3) for denial of compassionate
appointment to the petitioner are justified.
5. In the present case, the father of the petitioner passed away
in the year 2007 (Annexure-7). In contrast, the representation for
compassionate appointment was filed for the first time in the year
2024, i.e., after more than 17 years and 7 months of the death of
his father. It is pertinent to mention here that the mother of the
petitioner had survived the deceased-employee but no application
was ever filed by her asserting her right to seek appointment on
compassionate grounds due to any financial crisis or hardship; and
in the absence of such request in the initial days, this inordinate
delay in filing such a claim on the pretext that the petitioner was a
minor at that time cannot be considered to be bona fide and the
same strongly goes against the petitioner. Hence, the contention
of the learned counsel of the petitioner lacks merit.
6. The object of compassionate appointment is to provide
immediate support to the family of the deceased-employee.
Significant delay in filing the application, especially 17 years and 7
months after the death of the deceased-employee, weakens the
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:47:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31469] (3 of 9) [CW-5785/2025]
claim, as the immediate crisis is considered to have passed. Thus,
the application (dated 14.10.2024) filed after a considerable lapse
of time is unlikely to be granted.
7. That apart from the above, rejection of the claim for
appointment on compassionate grounds vide letter dated
28.11.2024 (Annexure-3), is in consonance with the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Umesh
Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana & ors. reported in
MANU/SC/0701/1994, wherein it was held as under:
"2......As a rule, appointments in the public
services should be made strictly on the
basis of open invitation of applications and
merit. No other mode of appointment nor
any other consideration is neither the
Governments nor the public authorities are
at liberty to follow any other procedure or
relax the qualifications laid down by the
rules for the post. However, to this general
rule which is to be followed strictly in every
case, there are some exceptions carved out
in the interests of justice and to meet
certain contingencies. One such exception is
in favour of the dependants of an employee
dying in harness and leaving his family in
penury and without any means of
livelihood. In such cases, out of pure
humanitarian consideration taking into
consideration the fact that unless some
source of livelihood is provided, the family
would not be able to make both ends meet,
a provision is made in the rules to provide
gainful employment to one of the
dependants of the deceased who may be
eligible for such employment. The whole
object of granting compassionate
employment is thus to enable the family to
tide over the sudden crisis.
.........
6………compassionate employment cannot
be granted after a lapse of a reasonable
period which must be specified in the rules.
The consideration for such employment is
not a vested right which can be exercised at
any time in future. The object being to
enable the family to get over the financial
crisis which it faces at the time of the death
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:47:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31469] (4 of 9) [CW-5785/2025]
of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate
employment cannot be claimed and offered
whatever the lapse of time and after the
crisis is over.”
8. Further, in the matter of State of J&K vs. Sajad Ahmed
Mir reported in (2006) 5 SCC 766, the Hon’ble Apex Court
observed as under:
“8………Once it is proved that in spite of
death of bread earner, the family survived
and substantial period is over, there is no
necessity to say ‘goodbye’ to normal rule of
appointment and to show favour to one at
the cost of interests of several others
ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the
Constitution.
……
9. In State of Haryana and Ors. v. Rani
Devi and Anr. [(1996) 5 SCC 308 : AIR
1996 SC 2445], it was held that the claim
of applicant for appointment on
compassionate ground is based on the
premise that he was dependant on the
deceased-employee. Strictly this claim
cannot be upheld on the touchstone of
Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution.
However, such claim is considered
reasonable as also allowable on the basis of
sudden crisis occurring in the family of the
employee who had served the State and
died while in service. That is why it is
necessary for the authorities to frame rules,
regulations or to issue such administrative
instructions which can stand the test of
Articles 14 and 16. Appointment on
compassionate ground cannot be claimed
as a matter of right.
13……….When the Division Bench decided
the matter, more than fifteen years had
passed from the date of death of the father
of the applicant. The said fact was indeed a
relevant and material fact which went to
show that the family survived in spite of
death of the employee.”
9. In addition to the above, in the matter of Central Coalfield
Ltd. vs. Parden Oraon reported in 2021 INSC 241, the Hon’ble
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:47:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31469] (5 of 9) [CW-5785/2025]
Apex Court, while relying on the principle laid down in the Umesh
Kumar Nagpal (Supra), held as under:
“8. The whole object of granting
compassionate appointment is to enable
the family to tide over the sudden crisis
which arises due to the death of the sole
breadwinner. The mere death of an
employee in harness does not entitle his
family to such source of livelihood. The
authority concerned has to examine the
financial condition of the family of the
deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied that
but for the provision of employment, the
family will not be able to meet the crisis
that the job is offered to the eligible
member of the family. It was further
asseverated in the said judgment that
compassionate employment cannot be
granted after a lapse of reasonable period
as the consideration of such employment is
not a vested right which can be exercised
at any time in the future. It was further
held that the object of compassionate
appointment is to enable the family to get
over the financial crisis that it faces at the
time of the death of sole breadwinner,
compassionate appointment cannot be
claimed or offered after a significant lapse
of time and after the crisis is over.”
10. Further, in the matter of Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs.
Gouri Devi reported in (2022) 17 SCC 531, the Hon’ble Apex
Court, while referring to Sajad Ahmed Mir (Supra), held as
under:
“5.3. In the case of State of J&K and Ors. v.
Sajad Ahmed Mir MANU/SC/3077/2006 :
(2006) 5 SCC 766, this Court had occasion
to consider the delay and laches in case of
appointment on compassionate ground. By
dismissing the claim for appointment on
compassionate ground, which was made
after a period of four and a half years of
death of the deceased employee, it was held
that appointment on compassionate ground
is an exception to general Rule that
appointment to public office should be made
on the basis of competitive merits. It is
further observed that once it is proved that
in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:47:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31469] (6 of 9) [CW-5785/2025]family survived and substantial period is
over, there is no need to make appointment
on compassionate ground at the cost of the
interests of several others ignoring the
mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.”
11. Further, it is apt to refer to the matter of Fertilizers and
Chemicals Travancore Ltd. vs. Anusree K.B. reported in 2022
INSC 1051, where the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:
“7. …… In the recent decision, this Court in
the case of Director of Treasuries in
Karnataka and Anr. v. Somyashree,
MANU/SC/0631/2021, had occasion to
consider the principle governing the grant of
appointment on compassionate ground.
After referring to the decision of this Court
in N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka,
MANU/SC/0277/2020: (2020) 7 SCC
617,this Court has summarised the principle
governing the grant of appointment on
compassionate ground as under:
(i) that the compassionate appointment is
an exception to the general rule;
(ii) that no aspirant has a right to
compassionate appointment;
(iii) the appointment to any public post in
the service of the State has to be made on
the basis of the principle in accordance with
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India;
(iv) appointment on compassionate ground
can be made only on fulfilling the norms laid
down by the State’s policy and/or
satisfaction of the eligibility criteria as per
the policy;
(v) the norms prevailing on the date of the
consideration of the application should be
the basis for consideration of claim for
compassionate appointment.
8. As per the law laid down by this Court in
catena of decisions on the appointment on
compassionate ground, for all the
government vacancies equal opportunity
should be provided to all aspirants as
mandated Under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. However, appointment on
compassionate ground offered to a
dependent of a deceased employee is an
exception to the said norms. The
compassionate ground is a concession and
not a right.
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:47:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31469] (7 of 9) [CW-5785/2025]
………..
9. Thus, as per the law laid down by this
Court in the aforesaid decisions,
compassionate appointment is an exception
to the general rule of appointment in the
public services and is in favour of the
dependents of a deceased dying in harness
and leaving his family in penury and without
any means of livelihood, and in such cases,
out of pure humanitarian consideration
taking into consideration the fact that unless
some source of livelihood is provided, the
family would not be able to make both ends
meet, a provision is made in the rules to
provide gainful employment to one of the
dependants of the deceased who may be
eligible for such employment. The whole
object of granting compassionate
employment is, thus, to enable the family to
tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not
to give such family a post much less a post
held by the deceased.”
12. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated a similar stance
in the matter of Tinku vs. State of Haryana and Ors. reported
in MANU/SC/1212/2024 held as under:
“12. As regards the compassionate
appointment being sought to be claimed as
a vested right for appointment, suffice it to
say that the said right is not a condition of
service of an employee who dies in
harness, which must be given to the
dependent without any kind of scrutiny or
undertaking a process of selection. It is an
appointment which is given on proper and
strict scrutiny of the various parameters as
laid down with an intention to help a family
out of a sudden pecuniary financial
destitution to help it get out of the
emerging urgent situation where the sole
bread earner has expired, leaving them
helpless and maybe penniless.
Compassionate appointment is, therefore,
provided to bail out a family of the
deceased employee facing extreme
financial difficulty and but for the
employment, the family will not be able to
meet the crisis. This shall in any case be
subject to the claimant fulfilling the(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:47:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31469] (8 of 9) [CW-5785/2025]requirements as laid down in the policy,
instructions, or Rules for such a
compassionate appointment.”
13. Thus, it is well established that the primary purpose of
granting a compassionate appointment is to enable the family of
the deceased employee to tide over a sudden financial crisis
arising from the loss of the breadwinner. This entitlement is not a
vested right exercisable at any time, but is subject to the
consideration of the immediate need and the circumstances
prevailing at the time of the claim. An essential aspect is the
promptness of the claim, as delays undermine the very object of
providing immediate succor.
14. Upon examination the facts of the case in light of the ratios
laid down in the precedents mentioned above, it is revealed that
the petitioner has filed his claim for appointment on
compassionate grounds 17 years and 7 months after the death of
his father (the deceased-employee) which shows that the family of
the deceased-employee has sustained itself for over 17 years.
Thus, there exists no sudden financial crisis due to the death of
the erstwhile breadwinner of the family i.e. the deceased-
employee.
15. In the light of these considerations and the precedents
referred hereinabove, since: (i) the petitioner moved the
application for compassionate appointment with an inordinate
delay of 17 years and 7 month; (ii) the mother of the petitioner
never filed any claim asserting her right to compassionate
appointment at the time of the death of the father of the
petitioner; (iii) there exists no sudden financial crisis in the
petitioner’s family; and (iv) the rejection vide letter dated
28.11.2024 was issued in terms of the norms prevailing at the
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:47:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31469] (9 of 9) [CW-5785/2025]
time of consideration of the application for compassionate
appointment, the reasons accorded for rejecting the petitioner’s
claim for the compassionate appointment cannot be said to suffer
from any arbitrariness, perversity or infirmity in the eyes of law,
warranting any interference by this Court.
16. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed,
being devoid of any merit.
17. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(MANEESH SHARMA),J
DEEPA-42
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:47:07 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link