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

The petitioner’s father, R.K.S. Thakur, a Patwari, died while in service on November 4, 1996

The petitioner was a minor at the time and submitted an application for compassionate appointment in 2006 upon reaching majority, which was rejected

In 2017, the petitioner’s brother also applied for compassionate appointment; however, the Deputy Collector rejected the claim on April 12, 2017, on the grounds that the petitioner’s mother was already in government service

The petitioner filed the present writ petition in 2022, seeking to quash the 2017 order and directing the authorities to employ him on compassionate grounds

1. Whether a claim for compassionate appointment can be entertained after a delay of approximately 24-26 years from the date of the employee's death

2. Whether the petitioner can maintain a challenge against an order passed in 2017 regarding his brother's application to seek relief for himself in 2022

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

The Court relied on State of Maharashtra v. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate (2022 SC), which held that appointment after a significant lapse of time is contrary to the object of the policy

It further cited Punjab State Power Corporation Limited v. Nirval Singh (2019), establishing that long delays (e.g., 7 years) extinguish the objective of providing immediate amelioration to the family

The Court observed that the cause of action originally arose in 1996, yet the petitioner approached the Court in 2022, marking a delay of 24 years

The Court dismissed the petitioner’s argument that the COVID-19 pandemic caused the delay, labeling the plea "absurd" given the decades-long timeline

The Court noted that the family had survived for over 25 years since the employee's death, which demonstrated that the immediate financial crisis intended to be mitigated by compassionate appointment no longer existed

The Court also found it procedurally improper for the petitioner to seek relief by assailing an order issued specifically against his brother's claim

The Court concluded there were no grounds to interfere with the respondent authorities' decisions due to the excessive delay and the fact that the family had successfully survived the intervening period

No order was made as to costs