The Chhattisgarh High Court held that compassionate appointment is meant to provide immediate financial succour to the family of a deceased government employee and cannot be claimed as a channel of public employment after an inordinate delay. The court dismissed a petition filed by an applicant who sought compassionate appointment fourteen years after the death of his father, observing that the very purpose of such appointments would be defeated if claims are entertained after the passage of many years. The court reiterated that compassionate appointment is a narrow exception to the general rule of recruitment and exists solely to alleviate the sudden financial crisis faced by a family due to the untimely death of a government servant.
In the case before the court, the petitioner’s father, a government employee, had died in the year 2005. At the time of his death, the petitioner was a minor. No application for compassionate appointment was made within a reasonable time following the death. It was only in 2019, after a lapse of fourteen years, that the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment upon attaining majority. The competent authority rejected the application on the ground of excessive delay, noting that the claim did not align with the object of the compassionate appointment scheme. Aggrieved by this rejection, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the decision and a direction to grant him appointment on compassionate grounds.
The petitioner contended that the delay was not deliberate and occurred because he was a minor at the time of his father’s death. He argued that he applied for compassionate appointment as soon as he became eligible after attaining majority. He further submitted that his mother had made efforts to secure compassionate appointment for him earlier, but the family was not properly guided by the authorities regarding the procedure. The petitioner also pointed to a dispute between his father’s two wives, both of whom sought compassionate relief for their respective children, as a factor that contributed to the delay. According to the petitioner, these circumstances, coupled with prolonged inaction on the part of the authorities, resulted in the belated application.
The petitioner also asserted that the family had suffered severe financial hardship following the death of his father, who was the sole breadwinner. He claimed that the family had no alternative source of income and continued to face economic distress for many years. On this basis, he argued that the authorities ought to have considered his application sympathetically despite the long delay, as the family’s financial difficulties had persisted over time.
The State opposed the petition, arguing that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and cannot be claimed after an unreasonable and unexplained delay. It submitted that the cause of action arose at the time of the employee’s death and that the family was expected to apply within a reasonable period if it was genuinely facing immediate financial hardship. The State pointed out that the compassionate appointment policy clearly prescribes timelines for submitting applications and that even in exceptional cases, the delay should not exceed the outer limits stipulated in the policy. According to the State, a delay of fourteen years clearly indicated that the family had overcome the immediate financial crisis, and therefore the very foundation for compassionate appointment no longer existed.
The High Court, after examining the facts and the applicable policy, agreed with the State’s submissions. The court observed that compassionate appointment is designed to meet an immediate crisis and is not intended to provide employment as a matter of inheritance or to revive claims long after the death of the employee. It noted that the petitioner and his family had several opportunities to pursue the claim earlier but failed to do so with due diligence. Long periods of complete inaction were evident from the record, which undermined the claim that the family was in continuous and pressing financial distress requiring intervention through compassionate appointment.
The court also referred to the relevant compassionate appointment policy in force, which requires applications to be made within a specified period from the date of death of the employee. The policy allows some relaxation in exceptional circumstances but makes it clear that the objective is to address immediate financial hardship. The court held that these timelines are integral to the scheme and cannot be ignored, as doing so would transform compassionate appointment into a general mode of recruitment, contrary to its intended purpose. The court further held that disputes within the family or lack of awareness of procedures cannot indefinitely extend or revive a claim that has become stale due to prolonged delay.
In concluding its decision, the High Court held that the rejection of the petitioner’s claim by the authorities was justified and in accordance with the applicable policy. It found no arbitrariness or illegality in the decision to deny compassionate appointment after a delay of fourteen years. The court emphasized that once the immediate financial crisis has passed, the rationale for compassionate appointment ceases to exist, and courts should not direct appointments that undermine the principles of equality in public employment. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
The judgment reaffirmed the settled legal position that compassionate appointment is a measure of immediate relief and not a means of securing government employment long after the death of an employee. It underscored that applicants must act promptly and demonstrate genuine and immediate financial hardship, and that prolonged delays without compelling justification are incompatible with the very object of the compassionate appointment scheme.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.