Compassionate appointment is unsustainable after long delay as the objective of providing immediate financial relief is extinguished.

The petitioner’s father, N. Adi Narayan, died in harness on March 9, 2012, while serving as a Manager for the respondent-Bank

The petitioner claimed to have submitted multiple applications for compassionate appointment between 2012 and 2021

Under the Bank's policy dated March 13, 2012, provision was made for a lump-sum ex-gratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment

Consequently, the Bank paid the petitioner an ex-gratia amount of ₹8 lakhs on September 17, 2012, which she accepted without protest

The petitioner approached the High Court in 2022, ten years after the cause of action arose, seeking a direction for compassionate appointment

1. Whether a claim for compassionate appointment can be sustained after a delay of ten years and the acceptance of an ex-gratia payment

2. Whether the petitioner's claim is barred by the principles of delay and laches

The Court emphasized that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of public recruitment, intended purely to provide immediate financial assistance to a family in penury following the death of a breadwinner.

It relied on State of Maharashtra v. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate (2022 SC), which established that such appointments cannot be granted years after the employee's death as it would defeat the policy's objective.

Furthermore, the Court applied the ratio from Punjab State Power Corporation Limited v. Nirval Singh (2019 SC), holding that significant delays in approaching the court and the existence of alternative relief (like ex-gratia payments) under prevailing policies are valid grounds to deny such claims.

The Court observed that the petitioner’s father died in 2012, yet the writ petition was filed only in 2022

While the petitioner asserted she had filed several applications, she failed to produce any proof of receipt or postal records to substantiate these claims

The Court noted that the petitioner had already accepted the ₹8 lakh ex-gratia payment in 2012 in accordance with the Bank’s policy

Applying the "Rule of Law," the Court reasoned that the primary objective of compassionate appointment—to provide immediate relief to tide over a sudden crisis—was no longer applicable since the family had already survived for a decade

The Court concluded that the long delay and the prior acceptance of financial compensation neutralized any claim for appointment under the exception to public employment rules

No order as to costs was made