### Compassionate Appointment Cannot Be Claimed by Grandson or for Non-Regular Work-Charged Employees Absent a Scheme

The petitioner is the grandson of Laboo Mondal, a "Work Charged Ex-Road Mazdoor" who died-in-harness on January 13, 1966

At the time of death, the deceased left behind a widow and a two-year-old son, Shasthi Mandal

Upon attaining majority in 1983-84, Shasthi Mandal applied for compassionate appointment, which was formally rejected on July 20, 2022

Subsequently, the petitioner (the grandson) applied for compassionate appointment on the grounds that his father had crossed the age limit for employment and the family remained in financial distress

This application was rejected by the authorities on February 20, 2026, on the grounds that the deceased was a "work-charged" employee and not a regular government servant

The petitioner challenged this rejection via a writ petition

1. Whether a grandson of a deceased employee is eligible to be considered a dependent family member for compassionate appointment under the extant rules

2. Whether compassionate appointment can be granted to the descendants of a "work-charged" employee as opposed to a regular government employee

3. Whether a claim for compassionate appointment can be entertained after a lapse of approximately 60 years from the date of the employee's death

The Court applied the principle that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but an exception to the general rule of recruitment, flowing strictly from a defined Scheme

Under Notification No. 251-Emp (2013), a "Government employee" for such schemes is restricted to those appointed on a regular basis, excluding daily wage, casual, or work-charged staff

Order No. 27-Emp (2022) of the Labour Department specifically clarifies that work-charged staff are not regular government employees

Furthermore, the legal objective of such schemes is limited to "tiding over the immediate financial crisis" following the death of a breadwinner

The Court reasoned that the petitioner failed to produce any Scheme that categorized a "grandson" as a dependent eligible for appointment

It noted that the deceased was a work-charged employee, and statutory notifications (Notification No. 251-Emp and Order No. 27-Emp) expressly exclude such staff from the definition of regular government employees eligible for the scheme

Regarding the timeline, the Court observed that the employee died in 1966, and the father of the petitioner had no right to apply at the time of death as he was a minor

The Court emphasized that compassionate appointment cannot be treated as a "reservation of vacancy" to be claimed decades later; its purpose is to address immediate exigency, which evaporates over a 60-year period

The petition was dismissed as there was no legal basis or Scheme to support the prayer, especially after the extreme delay since the death of the employee in 1966