Compassionate appointment cannot be granted to a second dependent or on a belated claim.

The petitioner’s father, Lekh Ram Shashtri, was appointed as an ad hoc JBT Teacher on 22.07.1988 and died in service on 24.07.1995. The petitioner’s mother applied for compassionate appointment in 1998–1999, but her applications were rejected by the State on 23.05.1998 and 16.01.1999. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in 2017; his application was forwarded by the Block Primary Elementary Education Officer to the higher authorities on 18.07.2017, but was rejected on 01.08.2017, inter alia, because one of his brothers was already in Government service.

The petitioner initially filed OA No. 6156 of 2018 before the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, which was transferred to the High Court after abolition of the Tribunal as CWPOA No. 5412 of 2020. He sought a direction for consideration of his claim for compassionate appointment.

1. Whether the petitioner could claim compassionate appointment when another dependent of the deceased employee was already in Government service, in view of Clause 5(c) of the applicable policy.

2. Whether the petitioner’s claim was maintainable despite his father’s status as an ad hoc employee and the policy allegedly excluding dependants of ad hoc employees.

3. Whether an application made approximately 22 years after the employee’s death, and approximately 14 years after the petitioner attained majority, was barred by the time limit and the doctrine that compassionate appointment must address an immediate financial crisis.

4. Whether the petitioner was entitled to relief when he had not specifically challenged the rejection order dated 01.08.2017.

Compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal recruitment process and is intended only to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee; it is not a vested right, a source of recruitment, or heritable employment.

Clause 5(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Policy dated 18.01.1990 prohibits compassionate appointment to a second or third family member where one or more dependants are already in Government service or service under a Government-controlled body, subject to the limited exception available to a widow claiming that she is unsupported.

Clause 8 requires an application within three years of the employee’s death, with a limited extension where the dependent was a minor, up to the applicable age limit of 21 years.

The Court relied on State of Himachal Pradesh v. Parkash Chand, (2019) 4 SCC 285, holding that courts cannot rewrite or disregard the conditions of a compassionate appointment policy.

Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 85, State of J&K v. Sajad Ahmed Mir, (2006) 5 SCC 766, and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653, concerning delay and loss of immediacy.

West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari, (2025) 5 SCC 712, reaffirming that compassionate appointment cannot ordinarily be granted after the financial crisis has passed and the family has sustained itself for a considerable period.

The Court also referred to State of U.P. v. Manish Dwivedi, Civil Appeal No. 237 of 2026, decided on 13.01.2026, in relation to belated claims.

The Court held that the petitioner was ineligible under Clause 5(c) because another member of the deceased employee’s family was already in Government service; granting appointment to the petitioner would therefore contravene the express policy restriction and the rule in Parkash Chand against judicially rewriting the scheme.

The claim was independently untenable because the deceased employee had served on an ad hoc basis, whereas the applicable policy did not extend compassionate appointment to dependants of ad hoc employees.

Further, the petitioner’s father died in 1995, while the petitioner attained majority in 2003 and applied only in 2017—well beyond the policy’s permissible period. The 22-year delay demonstrated that the family had survived without the claimed immediate assistance and that the foundational urgency of compassionate appointment had disappeared.

The Court also noted that the petitioner had not challenged the specific rejection order dated 01.08.2017, making him disentitled to seek relief against that decision in the present proceedings.

The Court further held that the unchallenged rejection order dated 01.08.2017 independently precluded relief. The petition and all pending miscellaneous applications were dismissed, with costs made easy.