Recently, the Delhi High Court dismissed a plea seeking compassionate appointment filed nearly three decades after the death of a CISF Constable, holding that such appointments are meant to provide immediate relief and cannot be treated as a perpetual entitlement. The Court emphasized that “compassionate appointment is not an alternative mode of recruitment” and must be sought within a reasonable timeframe to serve its intended humanitarian purpose.
The petitioner, son of late Vijay Kumar Yadav, a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) who died in harness in 1988, approached the Delhi High Court in 2022 seeking compassionate appointment as a Constable. His mother, Shakuntala Devi, had initially applied for such an appointment in 2000 but was not selected due to lack of requisite qualifications. Thereafter, the family remained silent for almost two decades.
In 2018, the petitioner, having attained majority in 2014 and subsequently acquired the required qualifications, submitted a fresh application for compassionate appointment. However, the CISF authorities declined the request in January 2020, prompting the petitioner to file the present writ petition.
The petitioner’s counsel, argued that the delay in filing the application was due to the petitioner’s minority status at the time of his father's death, and that the application was made soon after he became eligible.
The Bench underscored the settled legal position that compassionate appointments are intended to offer immediate relief to families facing financial hardship due to the sudden demise of a government employee. The Court remarked, “Compassionate appointment caters to a very specific exigency, which dies with efflux of time… It is not a right which continues in perpetuity till purged.”
Citing the Supreme Court’s decisions in Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India and Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K., the Court reiterated that compassionate appointment is an exception to the rule of merit-based recruitment and must be exercised within a reasonable period after the death of the employee. From Canara Bank, the Court quoted, “An application for compassionate appointment has to be made immediately upon death/incapacitation… or else a presumption could be drawn that the family is not in immediate need of financial assistance.”
The Court noted that no policy or rule had been cited by the petitioner to justify a delay of 18 years in seeking such an appointment.
Finding the petition devoid of merit, the Delhi High Court dismissed it, holding that the concept of compassionate appointment cannot be stretched to an indefinite period after the death of a government servant. The Court concluded, “We are, therefore, in no position to come to the aid of the petitioner. The writ petition is completely devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed”.
Case Title: Sachin Yadav vs. Union of India and Ors
Case No.: W.P.(C) 3805/2022
Coram: Justice C. Hari Shankar, Justice Om Prakash Shukla
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. R.K. Jha
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Rakesh Kumar Dudeja, Madan Lal Kalkal, Devendra Kumar, Priti
Picture Source :
