High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:137648 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11650 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mahendra Kumar Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Sagar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Legal Reasoning
"35. Considering the second question referred to above, in the first instance, regarding whether applications for compassionate appointment could be considered after a delay of several years, we are of the view that, in a case where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the part of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. Further, the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased, may have changed, for the better, since the time of the death of the government employee. In such circumstances, courts or other relevant authorities are to be guided by the fact that for such prolonged period of delay, the family of the deceased was able to sustain themselves, most probably by availing gainful employment from some other source. Granting compassionate appointment in such a case, as noted by this Court in Hakim Singh [Haryana SEB v. Hakim Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 85 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 31] would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession which is contrary to the Constitution. Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependants of the deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the government employee.
Arguments
1. Heard Sri Ram Sagar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dinesh Varun, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on account of his father dying in harness in the year 2002. 3. Upon a pointed query being made, learned counsel for the petitioner admits that petitioner became major in the year 2011 and ever since then he is continuously making representation after representation. 4. Learned Standing Counsel on the contrary submits that in the light of various authorities of this Court and the Supreme Court, the object of the compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succour to the berieved family and in the event family has survived for more than a decade that is for substantial period of time then situation that required immediate sympathy and immediacy of appointment is no more existing. In such circumstances such appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of vested right. In the case of State of W.B. v. Debabrata Tiwari, (2025) 5 SCC 712 the Supreme Court vide paragraphs 35, 41, 45 and 46 has held thus:
Decision
41. Applying the said ratio to the facts of the present case, we hold that the respondent-writ petitioners, upon submitting their applications in the year 2006-2005 did nothing further to pursue the matter, till the year 2015 i.e. for a period of ten years. Notwithstanding the tardy approach of the authorities of the appellant State in dealing with their applications, the respondent-writ petitioners delayed approaching the High Court seeking a writ in the nature of a mandamus against the authorities of the State. In fact, such a prolonged delay in approaching the High Court, may even be regarded as a waiver of a remedy, as discernible by the conduct of the respondent-writ petitioners. Such a delay would disentitle the respondent-writ petitioners to the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Further, the order of the High Court dated 17-3-2015 [Debabrata Tiwari v. State of W.B., WPA No. 3243 of 2015, order dated 17-3-2015 (Cal)] , whereby the writ petition filed by some of the respondents herein was disposed of with a direction to the Director of Local Bodies, Government of West Bengal to take a decision as to the appointment of the respondent-writ petitioners, cannot be considered to have the effect of revival of the cause of action. 45. In the present case, the applications for compassionate appointment were made by the respondent-writ petitioners in the year 2005-2006. Admittedly, the first concrete step taken by the Chairman of Burdwan Municipality was in the year 2013, when the said authority forwarded a list of candidates to be approved by the Director of Local Bodies, Burdwan Municipality. The respondent-writ petitioners knocked on the doors of the High Court of Calcutta only in the year 2015 i.e. after a lapse of nearly ten years from the date of making the application for compassionate appointment. The respondent-writ petitioners were not prudent enough to approach the courts sooner, claiming that no concrete step had been taken by the appellant State in furtherance of the application by seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus. 46. The sense of immediacy in the matter of compassionate appointment has been lost in the present case. This is attributable to the authorities of the appellant State as well as the respondent-writ petitioners. Now, entertaining a claim which was made in 2005-2006, in the year 2023, would be of no avail, because admittedly, the respondent-writ petitioners have been able to eke out a living even though they did not successfully get appointed to the services of the Municipality on compassionate grounds. Hence, we think that this are therefore not fit cases to direct that the claim of the respondent-writ petitioners for appointments on compassionate grounds, be considered or entertained." 5. In view of the above I see no justification now in the year 2025 after a lapse of 23 years of the death of deceased employee and then after the lapse of 13 years of petitioner being major to direct for consideration of his claim for compassionate appointment. 6. Accordingly, the petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 Deepika Digitally signed by :- DEEPIKA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad