Compassionate appointment claim rejected for delay and failure to challenge original rejection order within reasonable time.

The petitioner’s father, Shri Hemraj Singh Patel, died in harness on February 2, 1999, while serving as a Sahayak Vikas Vistar Adhikari.

At the time of death, the petitioner was a minor aged 10–11 years.

Upon attaining majority and completing his education, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on December 26, 2007.

This application was rejected via order dated November 29, 2007, because more than seven years had elapsed since the death, exceeding the prescribed limit in the State’s guidelines.

The petitioner did not challenge the 2007 rejection but filed a fresh representation in 2015.

The respondents issued a consequential order on February 17, 2016, reiterating the 2007 rejection.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash the 2016 order.

1. Whether a claim for compassionate appointment can be reopened through a fresh representation after a delay of nearly eight years from its initial rejection.

2. Whether the policy prevailing at the time of death or the policy prevailing at the time of consideration of the application is applicable.

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment 27 years after the death of the breadwinner.

The Court applied the principle established by the Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 2011 MPJR (FB) 19, which dictates that the policy prevalent on the date of consideration of the application governs compassionate appointment.

Compassionate appointment is an exception to Article 14 aimed at immediate financial relief; if a family survives for a substantial period after the death, the immediate necessity (the raison d'être of the policy) ceases to exist as per Steel Authority of India Limited v. Gouri Devi (2022) 17 SCC 531 and State of J&K v. Sajad Ahmed Mir (2006) 5 SCC 766.

The Court reasoned that the petitioner’s claim was first rejected in 2007 based on the then-applicable seven-year limitation policy.

By failing to challenge that original order and instead filing a fresh representation in 2015, the petitioner could not bypass the finality of the initial rejection; a "consequential order" merely informing him of a prior rejection does not create a new cause of action.

The Court observed that since 27 years had passed since the father’s death in 1999, the family had clearly coped with the crisis, extinguishing the petitioner’s right to claim such appointment as a matter of immediate amelioration.

The court answered that a rejected claim cannot be reopened via fresh representation after eight years.

Consequently, the High Court found no illegality in the impugned order dated February 17, 2016, and dismissed the writ petition.