Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed after inordinate delay as it is not a vested right.

The appellant’s father, a Guard in the Minor Water Resources Department, died in harness on 06.04.2014.

At the time, the appellant was a minor (14 years old), his mother was illiterate, and his sisters were either married or minors.

The appellant attained majority on 12.03.2018 and completed secondary school in 2020.

He applied for compassionate appointment on 19.07.2021—seven years after his father's death.

The District Level Compassionate Committee rejected the application on 27.01.2023 citing excessive delay.

A Single Judge dismissed the writ petition challenging this rejection on 18.11.2024.

The appellant then filed this Letters Patent Appeal (LPA).

1. Whether the rejection of the application for compassionate appointment on the ground of a seven-year delay was legally sustainable.

2. Whether the right to compassionate appointment is a vested right that can be exercised at any time after attaining majority.

The court applied the principle that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of public recruitment, intended solely to help a family survive a sudden financial crisis.

It relied on *Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana* (1994) 4 SCC 138 and *State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari* (2022) to establish that it is not a vested right or a source of recruitment and cannot be claimed after the crisis is over.

Furthermore, per *Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu* (2014) 4 SCC 108, the doctrine of laches applies to writ jurisdiction, as "the law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix".

Locally, Letter No. 2822 (27.04.1995) of the General Administration Department, Bihar, prescribes a five-year limit for such applications.

The Court observed that the primary objective of the scheme is to provide immediate relief to a family in distress following the death of an earning member.

In this case, there was an unexplained gap between the appellant attaining majority (2018) and filing the application (2021).

Because the family survived for seven years without the appointment, the "immediate hardship" justifying the exception to Article 16 of the Constitution no longer existed.

The Court found that the five-year limitation period prescribed by the State Government had expired, and the appellant's delay in applying even after reaching adulthood was fatal to the claim.

The Court found no perversity in the Single Judge’s order or the Committee's decision.

The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed, affirming that the application was time-barred and the appellant was not entitled to the relief.