Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla has dismissed a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment. The court held that an application for compassionate appointment made eighteen years after the death of the family’s breadwinner could not be entertained. The Bench observed that such appointments are intended to provide immediate relief to a family in distress following the death of a government servant in harness and cannot be treated as an alternative mode of recruitment. Consequently, the petition was found to be devoid of merits and was dismissed.

The petitioner is the son of Vijay Kumar Yadav, a Constable (General Duty) in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), who passed away on 21 September 1988 while in service. On 7 February 2000, Shakuntala Devi, the widow of Vijay Kumar Yadav, applied to the respondents for compassionate appointment. The request was not accepted as she did not possess the requisite qualification for the post of Constable.

Also Read: CCS (CCA) Rules | Supreme Court Upholds Disciplinary Proceedings Initiated by Minor Penalty Authority for Major Charges | Sets Aside Karnataka HC Relief to Retired Telecom Officer

Following this, the petitioner and his mother remained silent until 2018. On 2 February 2018, they again approached the respondents seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had attained majority in 2014 but did not have the required qualification for the Constable post at that time. Upon acquiring the necessary qualification, the petitioner applied in 2018.

On 13 January 2020, the petitioner and his mother were informed that the petitioner had not been recommended for compassionate appointment. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to grant him compassionate appointment as Constable.

The petitioner’s counsel did not cite any executive instruction, rule, or regulation that would permit an application for compassionate appointment eighteen years after the demise of the petitioner’s father. The dispute thus centered on whether such a delayed claim could be entertained.

The Bench recorded that “compassionate appointment is intended to enable a family of a government servant who dies in harness to tide over the immediately indigent circumstances in which it may find itself.” The court further noted that “compassionate appointment is not an alternative mode of recruitment. It caters to a very specific exigency, which dies with efflux of time.” The judges stated that “compassionate appointment cannot, therefore, be sought long after the bread winner of a family dies. It is not a right which continues in perpetuity till purged.”

The Bench stated that the authorities considering such requests must be satisfied that the family has been placed in distress due to the death of the main breadwinner and is unable to fend for itself, necessitating immediate relief. “Allowing applications for compassionate appointment more than a decade after the death of a family member would do complete disservice to the very concept of compassionate appointment and would convert it into an alternate mode of recruitment,” the order stated.

The court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India, observing: “Now, it is well settled that compassionate employment is given solely on humanitarian grounds with the sole object to provide immediate relief to the employee's family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and cannot be claimed as a matter of right... Being an exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve.”

Also Read: Disproportionate Cost Quashed | Delhi High Court Sets Aside ₹12 Lakh Penalty On Vi-John For Delay In Dabur’s Trademark Suit

The Bench also cited Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K., noting: “An application for compassionate appointment has to be made immediately upon death/incapacitation and in any case within a reasonable period thereof or else a presumption could be drawn that the family... is not in immediate need of financial assistance... it cannot be offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.”

The High Court stated: “We are, therefore, in no position to come to the aid of the petitioner.” It concluded that the writ petition was “completely devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.” The dismissal effectively upheld the respondents’ decision not to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. R.K. Jha, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dudeja, SPC with Mr. Madan Lal Kalkal, Mr. Devendra Kumar, and Ms. Priti, Advocates

Case Title: Sachin Yadav v. Union of India and Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:6292-DB

Case Number: W.P.(C) 3805/2022

Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar, Justice Om Prakash Shukla