Stale claims for compassionate appointment cannot be resuscitated by subsequent judicial directions for reconsideration.

The petitioner’s father, a member of the police service, committed suicide while in harness on May 14, 1998.

The petitioner was a minor at the time and attained majority in 2008.

Although his mother allegedly applied for his future appointment in 1998-1999, the petitioner officially applied for compassionate appointment on June 27, 2014, seven years after attaining majority and sixteen years after his father's death.

The application was rejected by the Superintendent of Police in 2015.

Following multiple rounds of litigation (O.A. 461/2015, O.A. 1003/2017), the Deputy Secretary finally rejected the claim on December 13, 2019.

The petitioner challenged this before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (O.A. 186/2020), which dismissed the plea on June 20, 2024, citing inordinate delay.

The petitioner then filed this writ petition.

1. Whether a claim for compassionate appointment can be maintained despite an inordinate delay of 17 years from the date of death and 7 years from the date of attaining majority.

2. Whether a prior direction by a Tribunal to "consider" a representation resuscitates a stale or barred claim.

3. Whether death by suicide qualifies as "death in harness" for the purpose of compassionate appointment.

The Court primarily applied the principle of "immediacy" as established in State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari Ors. (2025) 5 SCC 712, which mandates that compassionate appointments are intended to provide immediate succour to a family in distress and must be strictly construed according to the Scheme.

It further relied on the precedent from Union of India Anr. v. M. K. Sarkar (2010) 2 SCC 59, which holds that a dead or stale claim cannot be resuscitated merely because a Court or Tribunal directs the authorities to consider a representation; the cause of action remains tethered to the original date of the event.

The Court reasoned that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rules of recruitment, intended solely for immediate financial relief.

The petitioner waited 17 years after his father's death and 7 years after reaching majority to formally apply.

The Court found this delay "glaring" and noted that the relevant Scheme does not provide latitude for dependents who were minors to apply so many years after the employee's death.

Regarding the procedural history, the Court held that the Tribunal’s earlier directions to the State to "reconsider" the claim did not create a new cause of action or wash away the original delay and laches.

The claim was already "stale and dead" by the time it was pursued.

The High Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's order dated June 20, 2024. The Writ Petition was dismissed.