Claim for compassionate appointment barred by inordinate delay and frustration of immediate financial relief object.

The petitioner’s father, Bishun Ram, who served as an Assistant Teacher, died in harness on November 11, 2002.

Approximately ten years later, on April 18, 2012, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, which was rejected by the authorities on February 14, 2013.

The petitioner challenged this rejection by filing the present writ petition on August 20, 2020, citing a government circular dated June 14, 2013.

The State opposed the petition on the grounds of an unexplained seven-year delay in filing the writ and the fact that 24 years had passed since the employee's death.

1. Whether a claim for compassionate appointment can be entertained after a lapse of 24 years from the death of the government servant and an unexplained delay of seven years in approaching the Court.

The Court applied the doctrine of laches and the fundamental objective of compassionate appointment as established in *State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari* [(2023) 5 SCC 712], which mandates that such appointments are intended to provide immediate relief to a family in penury and are not a vested right of inheritance.

It further relied on *Moon Mills Ltd. v. M.R. Meher* [AIR 1967 SC 1450] and *State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal* [(1986) 4 SCC 566] regarding the High Court’s discretion to refuse relief in cases of inordinate delay.

Additionally, the court noted from *State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari* [(2013) 12 SCC 179] that a mere submission of representations does not arrest the period of limitation or revive a "dead" cause of action.

The Court reasoned that the primary object of compassionate appointment—to enable a family to tide over a sudden financial crisis—is frustrated when a long period of time has elapsed.

In this case, the death occurred in 2002, the application was made in 2012, and the petition was filed in 2020 via a delay of seven years from the date of rejection.

The Court observed that because the family survived for over two decades without such assistance, the "sense of immediacy" required for such a claim was lost.

The Court emphasized that Article 226 is a discretionary remedy and does not assist "the tardy and the indolent" who sleep over their rights.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of succession long after the crisis has passed.

No order as to costs was made.