The Delhi High Court has held that an application for compassionate appointment cannot be sought long after the death of a family’s primary earner and does not continue in perpetuity. The court ruled that this relief, which is designed to address immediate crisis, loses its underpinning if significant time has passed since the breadwinner’s demise. A two‑judge bench, led by Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, emphasised that the exceptional nature of compassionate appointment reflects a specific exigency that expires with the passage of time.
In the case before it, the son of a Central Industrial Security Force constable whose father had died while in service sought relief for appointment on compassionate grounds. The father passed away in September 1988. The mother, who initially applied in September 2000 for compassionate appointment, did not qualify for the position. Years later, the son applied in 2018, after attaining majority and meeting educational qualifications. The application — lodged thirty years after the father’s death — was rejected, prompting the petition before the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing grant of the appointment.
The Court noted that such belated claims are inconsistent with the statutory purpose of compassionate appointment, which is rooted in immediate financial distress following the death of the sole or primary earner in a family. The bench held that after a significant lapse of time, the sense of urgency dissipates, and emergency assistance cannot be converted into a routine recruitment alternative. Accepting such delayed claims, the Court observed, would render the concept of compassionate appointment meaningless and potentially open it up as a backdoor route of employment.
The High Court underscored that compassionate appointment serves a humanitarian objective and is not a substitute for open competitive recruitment. It must be exercised sparingly and confined to situations where sudden crisis has created dire necessity. The Court concluded that allowing applications decades later would contravene this principle and dilute the exception into a rule — fundamentally altering the policy’s intent.
Given the facts before it, the Court held that the petition lacked merit and must be dismissed. The plea was rejected on the ground of undue delay and the applicant’s failure to demonstrate persistent need or emergency circumstances at the time of the application. Because compassionate appointment is not a right but a concession, and because the statutory purpose was no longer applicable after such a lapse of time, the Court refused to interfere with the earlier administrative decision rejecting the application.
In sum, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed that compassionate appointment is a non‑vested, discretionary relief anchored in urgent financial necessity immediately following a breadwinner’s death. Once that urgency subsides, and time passes without filing the claim, eligibility ceases. The bench dismissed the petition outright, holding that it was devoid of any legal entitlement and incompatible with established jurisprudence on compassionate appointment.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.