Compassionate Appointment Cannot Be Claimed as a Vested Right After Prolonged Delay Following Employee's Death

The applicant, Kanchan Gautam, seeking compassionate appointment, is the daughter of Late Ram Lakhan, a T.I. in the Northern Railway who died in service on May 29, 2006.

The deceased left behind two wives and several children.

Despite the death occurring in 2006, the first formal application for compassionate appointment was submitted by the deceased's wives only on September 10, 2025.

At the time of filing this Original Application (OA) in 2026, the applicant was 26 years old.

The respondents contested the claim on the grounds of an eighteen-year delay and argued that compassionate appointment is not a vested right or a regular source of recruitment.

Whether a claim for compassionate appointment can be entertained after a prolonged delay of nearly two decades from the date of the employee's death.

Whether the applicant's family demonstrated a continued state of financial crisis or dependency that justifies an exception to general recruitment rules.

The Court applied the principle that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of public recruitment, intended solely to assist a family in surmounting an immediate financial crisis following the death of a breadwinner.

It relied heavily on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari (2025) 5 SCC 712, which held that sense of immediacy is lost over time and that claims cannot be treated as a matter of inheritance or succession.

The court noted that such appointments cannot be claimed as a vested right after the lapse of a considerable period.

The Tribunal observed that the deceased employee died in 2006, yet no application for appointment was made by any legal heir within the prescribed limitation period or upon the applicant reaching majority.

The first application in 2025—nineteen years after the death—diluted the "sense of immediacy" required for such relief.

The court reasoned that the family’s survival for nearly two decades suggests they were able to sustain themselves through other means, thereby extinguishing the "sudden financial crisis" justification.

The applicant failed to provide evidence of continuing financial dependency on the deceased.

The court found that granting relief after such a delay would violate the constitutional principles of equal opportunity in public employment by treating the post as heritable property.

It ruled that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and cannot be granted once the immediate crisis has passed.

Consequently, the O.A. was dismissed at the admission stage without cost.