Compassionate appointment cannot be granted beyond the three-year limitation period or after an inordinate delay.

The Appellant’s husband, a Police Constable, died in service on 19.10.2008

On 22.08.2011, the Appellant sought compassionate appointment for her daughter, Karthiga, which was rejected as the daughter was a minor at the time

Upon the daughter attaining majority, a fresh representation was submitted on 19.01.2018, which was rejected by the authorities due to the significant lapse of time

The Appellant challenged this before a Single Judge in W.P.No.26710 of 2019, which was dismissed on 12.09.2019

The present Writ Appeal was filed challenging that dismissal

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

2. Whether the rejection of the application on the grounds of being filed beyond the three-year limitation period under the Scheme was legally sustainable

The Court applied the settled legal principles governing compassionate appointment as established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

These principles dictate that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of public recruitment and is intended to provide immediate relief to a family in distress; therefore, terms and conditions of the specific Scheme must be scrupulously followed.

Specifically, the rule mandates that applications must be submitted within the prescribed period (three years in this instance) and cannot be granted after a prolonged lapse of time.

The Court reviewed the timeline of the death (2008) against the subsequent representations (2011 and 2018). It observed that the Scheme for compassionate appointment is governed by strict parameters, including a three-year limitation for applications.

The Court found that since the second representation was made nearly a decade after the death, it violated the core objective of the policy, which is to mitigate immediate financial exigency.

The Court reasoned that the passage of many years dilutes the necessity for such an appointment. By applying the Supreme Court’s precedents on the non-retroactive and time-bound nature of the Scheme, the Court determined there was no "infirmity or perversity" in the Single Judge’s order.

The Division Bench upheld the order of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the Writ Appeal. No costs were awarded, and connected petitions were closed.