Administrative delay in processing compassionate appointment does not preserve entitlement under a superseding policy.

The petitioner’s father died in harness on 26 August 2009.

The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 14 September 2009 under the policy then prevailing.

The application remained pending and was forwarded to the concerned authority only on 30 August 2010.

In the meantime, the State introduced a new policy dated 5 July 2011, under which eligible applicants were to receive lump-sum financial compensation instead of compassionate appointment.

The petitioner’s application was rejected on 9 April 2013 on the ground that he was not entitled to compassionate appointment under the new policy.

The respondents also required the petitioner to submit pension-related documents, an application for financial assistance, photographs, and bank-account details for processing compensation under the new policy.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to compassionate appointment under the policy applicable on the date of his application, despite the subsequent introduction of the policy dated 5 July 2011.

Whether the respondents could process and disburse compensation under the new policy without the documents requested in the communication dated 9 April 2013.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to interest on the compensation amount, and if so, at what rate and from what date.

The Court applied the principle that an application for compassionate appointment must be considered and decided within a reasonable period, which, as stated with reference to a catena of Supreme Court decisions, has been understood as having an outer limit of approximately three years.

The Court further held that entitlement could not automatically be claimed under the old policy when the application was required to be decided after the new policy had come into force.

It also applied the administrative law principle that essential procedural and payment-related documents—particularly bank details, pension details, and photographs—may be required before financial assistance can be processed and disbursed.

No specific statutory provision or individual precedent was identified in the judgment.

Although the petitioner had applied under the earlier compassionate-appointment policy, the Court held that the application was not decided within the required reasonable period and that the new policy had come into force during that period.

Consequently, the petitioner could not claim appointment under the old policy.

However, the respondents’ communication dated 9 April 2013 indicated that compensation could be processed under the new policy upon submission of the required documents.

The Court distinguished the fresh application requirement, which might arguably have been waived because the petitioner had already applied earlier, from the indispensable requirements of bank particulars, photographs, and pension-related information.

Since the petitioner approached the Court instead of furnishing those documents, the subsequent delay could not be attributed entirely to the respondents.

The Court therefore balanced the parties’ responsibility by directing payment with interest at 6%, rather than the 12% interest it considered appropriate if the delay had been solely attributable to the State.

The petitioner was directed to comply with the requirements specified in the communication dated 9 April 2013 within four weeks of the judgment.

Upon compliance, the respondents were directed to disburse the compensation within a further period of four weeks, together with interest at 6% per annum calculated from 9 April 2013.

The petition was disposed of, and the Rule was made absolute to that extent.