Delayed compassionate appointment claims are unsustainable as the objective of immediate financial relief is lost.

The petitioner’s father, Haribaksh Singh, served as a Forest Guard under the respondent department and died in harness on September 25, 1993

On February 5, 2018—approximately 24 years after the death—the petitioner applied for a compassionate appointment

This application was rejected by the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Respondent No. 5) on May 18, 2018, citing the significant delay and failure to meet the limitation period prescribed in the recruitment policy dated June 10, 1994

The petitioner subsequently filed this writ petition in 2022, seeking to set aside the rejection order and obtain a direction for reconsideration

1. Whether an application for compassionate appointment can be maintained after a delay of 24 years from the date of the employee's death, and a subsequent court challenge after 29 years

Compassionate appointment is a humanitarian exception to the general rule of public recruitment, designed specifically to provide immediate financial assistance to a family in penury following the death of a breadwinner

The court applied the principle from State of Maharashtra v. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate (2022), which held that such appointments are intended to tide over sudden crises and cannot be claimed after many years

It further relied on Punjab State Power Corporation Limited v. Nirval Singh (2019), which established that excessive delay in seeking redressal extinguishes the objective of providing immediate amelioration to the deceased's family

The court noted that the father died in 1993, while the application for appointment was only moved in 2018 and the petition filed in 2022. By the time the matter reached the court, 29 years had elapsed since the cause of action arose

The court reasoned that the very purpose of the compassionate appointment scheme is to provide "immediate" relief to prevent a family from slipping into destitution

Following the logic in Madhuri Maruti Vidhate, the court found that the petitioner could not be considered a dependent in need of emergency aid after such a long interval

Furthermore, the court observed that since the family had managed to survive for nearly three decades without the appointment, the "sudden crisis" necessitated by the death had long since passed, thereby achieving the practical survival objective and negating the need for judicial interference

The High Court dismissed the writ petition. No order as to costs was made