Compassionate appointment is not a vested right and is barred by inordinate, unexplained delay.

The appellant’s father, a Circle Coordinator, died in harness on February 19, 2005.

At the time, the appellant was a minor.

A legal dispute between the deceased's two wives regarding entitlement was resolved via compromise on February 1, 2019.

Upon attaining majority, the appellant applied for a compassionate appointment on June 12, 2019, but the claim was rejected on March 6, 2020, due to delay.

Following a court-directed reconsideration, the representation was again rejected on March 16, 2023.

The appellant challenged this before a Single Judge in WPS No. 2604/2023, which was dismissed on January 22, 2026.

The present writ appeal was filed to set aside the Single Judge's order and seek directions for appointment and compensation.

1. Whether a claim for compassionate appointment can be entertained after a delay of approximately 14 years from the date of the employee's death.

2. Whether compassionate appointment constitutes a vested right of inheritance for the dependents of a deceased employee.

3. Whether the minority of the claimant and inter se family disputes sufficiently justify the bypass of prescribed statutory timelines in compassionate appointment policies.

Principles of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India regarding equality in public employment.

Compassionate appointment is not a vested right or a condition of service, but a narrow exception intended to provide immediate financial succour to a family in distress as established in Tinku v. State of Haryana and others (2024).

Chhattisgarh Compassionate Appointment Notification dated February 23, 2019, which mandates that applications must be filed within a specified period, not exceeding five years even in exceptional circumstances.

The fundamental objective of compassionate appointment is to mitigate immediate financial hardship caused by the sudden death of a breadwinner.

The Court noted the father died in 2005, while the application was only filed in 2019—a gap of 14 years.

Such a significant lapse of time suggests the family's immediate financial crisis has subsided, thereby extinguishing the rationale for the exception.

Regarding the appellant's minority and the matrimonial dispute, the Court found a lack of documentary evidence to substantiate that these factors prevented a diligent pursuit of the claim.

Attaining majority does not "revive" a claim that has become time-barred under the governing policy.

Granting relief after nearly two decades would undermine the constitutional mandate of equality by treating public employment as a matter of inheritance.

The Court held that there was no illegality in rejecting the claim due to inordinate and unexplained delay.

Compassionate appointment cannot be granted after the crisis has long subsided, as doing so would violate the legal framework and the specific timelines prescribed in the State Government’s policy.

No costs were awarded.