Employer bears initial onus to inform deceased employee's family of compassionate appointment rights to prevent rejection for delay.

The petitioner’s father, a regular Beldar with the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB), died in harness on 21.12.2001.

At the time, the petitioner was 13 years old and his mother had predeceased his father.

The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in 2016 (ten years after attaining majority).

The respondents initially rejected the claim, leading to a previous writ petition (CWP No. 73 of 2022) where the court directed the respondents to reconsider the case under the policy in vogue at the time of death.

On 24.06.2025, the respondents again rejected the application via Annexure P-16, citing a 22-year delay and alleging the petitioner failed to apply within the two-year window prescribed by the 1996 Policy.

The petitioner challenged this rejection, alleging discrimination as one Vikas Sharma was granted appointment despite a similar delay.

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment on the grounds of delay was legally sustainable given the lack of departmental notification to the bereaved family.

2. Whether the respondents acted arbitrarily and discriminatorily by rejecting the petitioner's case while accommodating a similarly situated candidate (Vikas Sharma).

The court applied the principles governing compassionate appointment under the BBMB Policy of 18.08.1996, which generally requires applications within six months to two years of the employee's death.

The court established a procedural duty upon the employer, ruling that the initial onus lies on the Department to inform the deceased employee’s family of their right to seek compassionate appointment.

The court applied the principle of parity under Article 14 of the Constitution, holding that the State cannot arbitrarily apply delay-related disqualifications to one candidate while waiving them for another similarly situated person.

The court found the respondents' claim of a 22-year delay "perverse" and "erroneous," noting the petitioner was a minor at the time of death.

The Judge reasoned that since the petitioner was a minor matriculate and the Department failed to "hold out" or inform the family of their legal rights, the petitioner should not suffer for the Department's omission.

The court analyzed the case of Vikas Sharma, who was granted appointment 27 years after his father's death and 12 years after attaining majority.

Since the respondents provided only an evasive reply regarding this disparity, the court determined that if the Department could show "compassion" to Sharma, it was legally bound to treat the petitioner with the same standard of fairness.

It held that the Department has an affirmative duty to inform families of their right to compassionate appointment, and failure to do so prevents them from strictly enforcing limitation periods against minor dependents.

The respondents were directed to offer the petitioner an appointment based on his qualifications and his father’s post, effective from the date of his first writ petition.