Village And Post Birharu, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur (Raj.) v. State of Rajasthan through its Joint Secretary

Judgment

4. State of Rajasthan through its Joint Secretary Administration Home Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) (Group-1), Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Lalkothi, Jaipur. Inspector General of Police, Recruitment And Promotion Board, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 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 [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 [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 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 [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. ...... applicant for appointment

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 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 [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 [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. for all

8. As per the law laid down by this Court in catena of decisions on the appointment on compassionate ground, 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. [2025:RJ-JP:31469] (7 of 9) [CW-5785/2025] ...........

9. Thus, as per the law laid down by this the aforesaid decisions, Court 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 granting compassionate object 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 [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 [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. DEEPA-42 (MANEESH SHARMA),J