An age-eligible dependent cannot be denied compassionate appointment solely because employer delay rendered him overage.

The deceased employee, Ruspelli Kistaiya, served Western Coalfields Limited for approximately 36 years and died in harness on 17 December 2020.

His son, appellant No. 2, was then aged 34 years, 10 months and 12 days, and was therefore below the maximum age of 35 years prescribed under Clause 9.3.4 of the National Coal Wage Agreement-VI (NCWA).

On 3 January 2021, the widow approached the respondent authorities regarding post-death service benefits, and on 4 January 2021 the authorities directed appellant No. 2 to undergo police verification.

He completed police and document verification on 11 February and 25 February 2021, respectively, but attained 35 years of age on 5 February 2021.

The formal application was submitted on 28 May 2021 and acknowledged on 14 June 2021.

The respondents rejected the claim on 3 February 2023, communicated on 20 May 2023, on the ground that appellant No. 2 had crossed the prescribed age limit.

The Bombay High Court affirmed the rejection on 26 November 2025, holding that age was to be assessed when the claim was considered.

1. Whether the age eligibility of a dependent under Clause 9.3.4 of the NCWA is to be determined on the date of consideration of the application, or on the date when the right to seek compassionate appointment accrued and the process was initiated?

2. Whether the respondents could reject the claim solely because appellant No. 2 crossed the age of 35 years during the pendency of the administrative process, particularly when the delay was attributable to the authorities?

Compassionate appointment is not a vested right but is a welfare measure intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee; accordingly, the governing scheme must be interpreted fairly and reasonably so that its object is not defeated.

Clause 9.3.4 of the NCWA prescribes that a dependent seeking compassionate appointment should not be more than 35 years of age.

Applying Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa & Ors., (2024) 15 SCC 766, the Court held that an otherwise eligible applicant should not suffer because of delay or inaction attributable to the employer, and that compassionate-appointment applications should ordinarily be decided expeditiously, preferably within six months of submission of the completed application.

The Court further applied the principle that an employer cannot take advantage of its own administrative delay to defeat an otherwise valid claim.

The Court held that the 4 January 2021 direction requiring police verification was not a mere preliminary administrative act.

Under the respondents’ own SOP, antecedent and police verification were required before processing a compassionate-appointment claim; therefore, the process had already commenced when appellant No. 2 was below 35 years of age.

Even if 14 June 2021—the date of acknowledgment of the formal application—were treated as the relevant date, the respondents took approximately 19 months to reject the claim.

The Court found that appellant No. 2 had submitted the application within a reasonable period and that the delay, including the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, could not fairly be attributed to him.

Treating him as ineligible merely because he crossed the age limit while the authorities processed the claim would allow the respondents to benefit from their own delay and would defeat the immediate-relief object of compassionate appointment.

The High Court also erred in finding that the claim had been considered within four to five months, since the record showed rejection only on 3 February 2023.

It directed the respondents to reconsider appellant No. 2’s claim by treating him as age-eligible and by examining only the remaining conditions under the applicable scheme.

The exercise was to be completed within eight weeks of receiving the judgment; if he was otherwise eligible, appointment was to be offered within a further four weeks.

The Court clarified that its decision was confined to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.