Administrative delay cannot deprive an eligible applicant of compassionate appointment under the prevailing policy.

The petitioner’s father, a Peon employed at the respondent school since 1967, died in harness on 10 May 2007. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 24 September 2007 and was otherwise eligible for a Class IV post under the policy then in force.

The application was rejected on 10 June 2011 on the ground that the family was receiving family pension of ₹4,685 and had not established financial hardship.

The petitioner challenged the rejection in SCA No. 7808 of 2014. By order dated 7 December 2017, the High Court quashed the rejection and remanded the matter, directing the authority not to consider family pension or retiral benefits.

The State’s Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed on 17 June 2021, but the authorities thereafter passed an order dated 20 August 2022 granting lump-sum compensation under a subsequently amended policy instead of considering compassionate appointment under the policy prevailing when the application was made. The petitioner challenged that order.

Whether the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment was required to be considered under the policy prevailing on the date of his application, rather than under the subsequently amended policy providing lump-sum compensation, where the delay was attributable to the respondent authorities.

Whether the order dated 20 August 2022 granting lump-sum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment was legally sustainable.

Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of recruitment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, is a concession rather than a vested right, and the claimant must satisfy the applicable policy conditions.

Relying principally on N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617, and the principles discussed therein from SBI v. Raj Kumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661, M.C.B. Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh, (2014) 13 SCC 583, Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412, and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653, the Court recognised that compassionate-appointment claims ordinarily are governed by the norms prevailing when the application is considered, not necessarily those prevailing on the employee’s death.

However, the authorities cannot take advantage of their own prolonged and unjustified delay or apply a subsequent, less beneficial policy when the delay in deciding the claim is wholly attributable to them.

The petitioner applied promptly in 2007 under the policy dated 10 March 2000, which contemplated compassionate appointment.

The authorities delayed consideration for approximately four years and rejected the application on a ground—reliance on family pension and retiral benefits—that the High Court specifically held could not be considered.

Even after remand, the authorities delayed reconsideration for nearly another four years and pursued an unsuccessful appeal before granting lump-sum compensation under the later policy.

Although N.C. Santhosh ordinarily requires application of the policy prevailing on the date of consideration, the Court held that this principle could not permit the respondents to benefit from their own inaction. Since the petitioner’s eligibility was not disputed and the adverse change in policy operated only because of administrative delay, the claim had to be reconsidered under the policy applicable when the application was submitted.

The authorities were directed to reconsider the petitioner’s claim under the policy dated 10 March 2000, without being influenced by the later policy, and, if he was otherwise eligible, to pass appropriate orders granting compassionate appointment within two months of receiving the order. The petition was allowed and the Rule was made absolute to that extent.