Safiya Malik

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar, Single Bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma dismissed a petition seeking compassionate appointment under SRO-43 of 1994, citing statutory limitations and established Supreme Court judgements. The judgment, pronounced on May 9, 2025, held that compassionate appointments are intended as immediate relief measures, not a deferred mode of public employment.

The petitioner, Thinles Dorjey, represented by Advocate Mr. G.M. Bhat, challenged the communication dated January 8, 2014, whereby his request for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground of being time-barred. He further sought directions for reconsideration of his case under SRO-43 of 1994.

Also Read: Insurer's Statutory Liability Cannot Be Wiped Out Without Proof | Supreme Court Restores Tribunal's Award And Holds That The Obligation To Satisfy The Third-Party Claim Revives In Full

The petitioner’s father, Gang Tsering, an employee of the Youth Services & Sports Department, died in harness on October 21, 2000, leaving behind his widow, a son (the petitioner), and a daughter. At the time of his father’s death, the petitioner was only 9 years and 7 months old. His mother, being illiterate, did not apply for compassionate appointment immediately. Upon attaining majority and completing matriculation, the petitioner submitted his application on April 9, 2008, to the Deputy Commissioner/CEO, LAHDC, Kargil, for a Class-IV post in the Education Department.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that despite the dire financial conditions of the family, the authorities failed to take prompt action on his application, compelling him to serve a legal notice on November 9, 2013. In response, the authorities rejected his request, citing it as time-barred.

The respondents, represented by Mr. T.M. Shamsi, DSGI, filed objections asserting that the petitioner was ineligible at the time of his father’s death and did not acquire eligibility within the stipulated one-year period as per Rule 3 of the Jammu and Kashmir (Compassionate Appointment) Rules, 1994. The respondents stated that compassionate appointment is intended to alleviate immediate financial hardship, and applications made after a significant lapse of time defeat this purpose.

The respondents further contended that under Rule 3 of SRO-43 of 1994, the applicant must be qualified or acquire eligibility within one year from the date of the deceased's death. As the petitioner applied in 2008—almost eight years after his father’s demise—his case was correctly rejected as time-barred.

Justice Sindhu Sharma observed that the statutory framework under SRO-43 of 1994 requires that the applicant either be qualified at the time of the deceased’s death or acquire eligibility within one year. Quoting directly from Rule 3, the Court noted: "Provided further that no application for compassionate appointment under these rules shall be entertained after the expiry of one year from the date of death of the deceased person."

The Court reiterated that the objective of compassionate appointment is to provide "immediate succour to the family which has suffered distress or hardship on the untimely death of the sole bread earner." The judgment stressed that compassionate appointments are not meant to open alternative routes to public employment.

Justice Sharma referred extensively to the Supreme Court judgment in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653, where it was observed: "It is the immediacy of the need which furnishes the basis for the State to allow the benefit of compassionate appointment. This sense of immediacy is evidently lost by the delay on the part of the dependant in seeking compassionate appointment."

Also Read: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Arrest And Remand In Corruption Case | Holds Remand Report Was Served On Detenue Before Hearing | Grounds Of Arrest Must Convey Basic Facts To Enable Defence

Further reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari and others, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 175, wherein it was categorically held:

1. A provision for compassionate appointment makes a departure from general recruitment provisions and must be resorted to only to achieve the stated objectives, i.e., to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.

2. Compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment and should not be treated as a vested right.

3. Compassionate employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over.

4. Such appointments should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such cases pending for years.

Justice Sharma recorded that the petitioner applied nearly eight years after his father’s death and failed to meet the eligibility criteria within the statutory time frame. "By that time, he could have already managed to sustain himself and overcome the financial hardships," the Court noted.

The Court concluded that the petitioner’s claim failed both on merits and on account of being time-barred. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed with the observation that "compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in the future and cannot be claimed or offered after the crisis is over or a significant amount of time has passed."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. G.M. Bhat, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. T.M. Shamsi, DSGI

Case Title: Thinles Dorjey v. State of J&K and Others

Case Number: SWP No. 60/2015

Bench: Justice Sindhu Sharma

[Read/Download order]