Compassionate appointment claims are governed by the policy prevailing at the employee’s death.

The petitioner’s father, an employee of the work-charged contingency establishment, died in harness on 15 July 2012.

The petitioner claimed that he applied for compassionate appointment on 2 January 2017, relying on the State policy dated 31 August 2016, which extended compassionate-appointment benefits to dependants of deceased work-charged employees.

The Court found no departmental acknowledgment proving that the alleged application had in fact been submitted.

Although the petitioner contended that he was a minor when his father died, he produced no document substantiating minority; the cause title showed that he was 25 years old in 2017.

The State opposed the claim on the ground of delay.

The matter remained pending while the petitioner was absent on several dates, and he sought consideration for appointment at a substantially belated stage.

1. Whether the petitioner could claim compassionate appointment under the subsequent policy dated 31 August 2016 when his father died in 2012.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for consideration of his claim despite the alleged application having been made approximately four-and-a-half years after the death and the claim being pursued belatedly.

3. Whether the petitioner established that he was a minor at the time of his father’s death so as to justify the delay in seeking compassionate appointment.

Compassionate appointment is governed by the policy or scheme in force on the date of the deceased employee’s death; a subsequent policy cannot be applied retrospectively.

The Court relied on State of Madhya Pradesh & Others v. Ashish Awasthi, (2022) 2 SCC 157, which applied this principle to dependants of work-charged employees and held that the policy prevailing on the date of death controls.

The same principle was recognized in Indian Bank v. Promila, (2020) 2 SCC 729, and State of M.P. v. Amit Shrivas, (2020) 10 SCC 496.

The Court also applied the principle that compassionate appointment is an exception intended to address immediate financial hardship and cannot ordinarily be claimed after an unexplained or inordinate delay, relying on Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Gouri Devi, (2022) 17 SCC 531.

The petitioner’s father died in 2012, whereas the petitioner relied on the 31 August 2016 policy.

Under Ashish Awasthi, the 2016 policy could not retrospectively create a right that did not exist under the policy operative when the death occurred.

The policy applicable in 2012 was not placed on record, and therefore the Court could not determine that the petitioner was entitled to compassionate appointment under that policy.

Independently, the alleged application dated 2 January 2017 was unsupported by any acknowledgment from the department.

The petitioner also failed to prove minority at the time of death; the material on record instead indicated that he was a major in 2012.

The delay from the death in 2012 to the alleged application in 2017, coupled with the petitioner’s prolonged absence during the proceedings, defeated the claim under the settled law against belated compassionate-appointment requests.

No direction for compassionate appointment or consideration of the claim was warranted.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.