Compassionate appointment cannot be granted after an inordinate delay as the immediate financial crisis is deemed over.

The petitioner’s father, a Sweeper at Patna Medical College and Hospital (PMCH), died in harness on July 23, 2009

The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on October 22, 2010, but was initially rejected for lacking requisite educational qualifications

After subsequently passing the Madhyama Examination, he submitted his certificate and filed further representations, including one to the District Magistrate on July 14, 2025

The petitioner approached the High Court in 2026 seeking a mandamus to compel the respondents to consider his appointment, citing financial hardship

1. Whether a claim for compassionate appointment can be entertained after a significant lapse of time (17 years) from the date of the employee's death

2. Whether compassionate appointment is a vested right that can be exercised at any time in the future

The Court applied the principle that compassionate appointment is not a vested right or an alternative mode of recruitment, but a specific measure to provide immediate succour to a family in financial crisis following the death of a breadwinner

It relied on Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138, which establishes that such employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period as the intent is to mitigate immediate hardship

It further cited Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar (1996) 1 SCC 301, affirming that appointments cannot be made long after a dependent attains majority

Local Administration Department v. M. Selvanayagam (2011) 13 SCC 42, which holds that delayed appointments conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution

The Court reasoned that the primary objective of compassionate appointment—to relieve the "unexpected immediate hardship" caused by the sudden death of an earning member—evaporates with the passage of time

The Court noted that the petitioner's lack of initial qualification and subsequent acquisition of a degree years later did not entitle him to a post, as doing so would treat compassionate appointment as a standard "mode of recruitment" rather than emergency relief

Following the precedent in Janki Ballabh v. State of Bihar (2026), the Court found the claim vitiated by delay and laches

The Hon'ble High Court dismissed the writ petition and all pending applications, mirroring the stance that the crisis justifying such an appointment is deemed over after such a prolonged period