[2025:RJ-JP:23907-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18113/2024 Madhur Manish S/o Late Sh. Chhaganlal Bairwa, Aged About 40 Years, House No.19, Sita Ram Colony, Sendra Road, Beawar District Beawar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Telecommunications, Sanchar Bavan, 20 Ashoka Road, New Delhi- 110001 2. Office Of The Controller Of Communication Accounts, Through Its Chief Controller Of Accounts, Ministry Of Communications (Government Of India, Department Of Telecommunications, Sanchar Lekha Bhawan, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur (Raj)- 302004 3. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Through Its Chirman And Managing Director, Registered And Corporate Office Bharat Sanchar Bhavan Harish Chandra Mathur Lane, Janpath, New Delhi-110001 4. Office Of General Manager Telecom District, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Through Its General Manager, 1, Civil Lines, Ajmer-305001. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Sharma for Mr. Hemant Taylor For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nachiketa Pareek HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 30/06/2025 1. Laying challenge to the order dated 24.09.2024 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in Original Application No. 549/2024, [2025:RJ-JP:23907-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-18113/2024] whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner for seeking compassionate appointment has been dismissed, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. 2. Petitioner has come out with a case that his father late Shri Chagan Lal Bairwa was posted as Junior Telecom Officer in BSNL, Beawar, Ajmer, however, all of sudden while he was in service, passed away on 22.07.2003. He submitted that on account of ongoing litigation with regard to rival claims in respect of pensionary benefits of his deceased father, he could not file application for seeking compassionate appointment at the relevant time and later on such application for seeking compassionate appointment was filed in October, 2012, however, such application could not find any favourable consideration and was rejected on account of being submitted with delay. The petitioner prayed that there is no bread earner in the family and death of his father has forced the entire family in financial crisis, hence he was entitled for compassionate appointment. 3. Learned Tribunal vide order dated 24.09.2024 has rejected the Original Application solely on the ground that after expiry of 21 years from the date of death of father of petitioner, no directions for compassionate appointment could have been given. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while dismissing the Original Application, learned Tribunal has committed serious error of fact and law in not considering the reasons for which the application for seeking compassionate appointment could not be filed [2025:RJ-JP:23907-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-18113/2024] within time by the petitioner. He would further submit that in case the reasons for making an application are genuine then compassionate appointment cannot be denied solely on the ground that it has been prayed with considerable delay. Learned counsel would submit that on account of rival claims with regard to entitlement of family pension, earlier the application could not be filed and only after settlement of such dispute the application was filed, yet without considering these reasons learned Tribunal has wrongly rejected his Original Application. He prayed for quashing of order dated 24.09.2024. 5. We have considered the record of the writ petition and also heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is no more res-integra that compassionate appointment is not an alternate source of recruitment and is simply meant for granting immediate relief to the family in distress on account of sudden death of sole bread earner. In case the petitioner and his family could manage to pull on the family by making arrangement of livelihood for as many as 21 years, by no stretch of imagination, after such a long delay it can be said that they are still in emergent requirement of compassionate appointment so as to financially support the family. In case of State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate (since after marriage Smt. Madhuri Santosh Koli) reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1327 where compassionate appointment was sought after long delay from the date of death of the government employee, the [2025:RJ-JP:23907-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-18113/2024] Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that once the immediacy of financial distress has passed, no claim to seek compassionate appointment would survive. For ready reference relevant part of the judgment is quoted hereunder:- “12. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased. 13. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, to appoint the respondent now on compassionate ground shall be contrary to the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground. The respondent cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased employee, i.e., her mother. Even otherwise, she shall not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years from the death of the deceased employee. 14. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated hereinabove, the Tribunal as well as the High Court have committed [2025:RJ-JP:23907-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-18113/2024] serious error in directing the appellants to appoint the respondent on compassionate ground. The judgment and order passed by the Tribunal confirmed by the High Court directing the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years is unsustainable.” 7. Similarly in the case of Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Hakim Singh reported in 1997 (8) SCC 85, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that belated claims for compassionate appointment do not confer any right. 8. By now, it is well settled that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the petitioner who slept for his alleged right for as many as 21 years cannot seek any relief in the instant writ petition. Hence, no interference is called for in the order dated 24.09.2024 passed by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J pcg/81