[2026:RJ-JP:12728] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4908/2026 Ashish S/o Late Shri Hari Singh Kudi, aged about 20 years, R/o Mukam Post Barsinghpura, Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Head Office, Chomu Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan, through its Chairman. 2. The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Central Bus Stand Sikar Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment 24/03/2026 1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of direction to the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner on account of the death of the petitioner’s father, who was serving as Driver with the respondent-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. The petitioner contends that the family suffered financial hardship upon the demise of the deceased employee and that the denial of compassionate appointment is arbitrary and unjust. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Late Shri Hari Singh, father of the petitioner was working on the substantive post of Driver with respondent-Rajasthan State Road [2026:RJ-JP:12728] (2 of 6) [CW-4908/2026] Transport Corporation. However, he expired on 27.05.2012 while in service, leaving behind his family. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of death of father of the petitioner, he was ageing around 6 years. The petitioner is Secondary pass and possessing conductor licence issued by the Regional Transport Officer, Sikar, which was valid up to 17.10.2027. Upon attaining majority, the petitioner submitted an application to the respondent seeking benefit of appointment on compassionate ground. However, said application of the petitioner has been dismissed by Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 06.03.2025 on the ground that application was submitted after lapse of 13 years whereas maximum relaxation of 5 years can be granted. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing instant writ petition. It is submitted that the action of the respondents in declining benefit of appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner is unjustified, unwarranted and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that when the compassionate appointment rules entitles the petitioner for compassionate appointment for saving the family of deceased employee from starvation, there is no justification in not providing the same to the petitioner, dependent of the deceased employee. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for allowing the writ petition as also issuance of direction to the respondents for grant of appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the material on record. [2026:RJ-JP:12728] (3 of 6) [CW-4908/2026] 5. The relevant facts, which are not in dispute, disclose that the deceased employee died in harness on 27.05.2012 several years prior to the filing of the present writ petition. It is an admitted position that no immediate claim for compassionate appointment was pursued by the petitioner and the present writ petition has been instituted after a substantial and unexplained lapse of time. 6. The central issue that arises for consideration is whether a claim for compassionate appointment can be sustained after a long and unexplained delay and whether such a claim survives the settled legal principles governing compassionate appointment under public service jurisprudence. 7. At the outset, it must be reiterated that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, nor an alternative mode of recruitment. It constitutes a narrowly carved exception to the general rule of public employment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, intended solely to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee who dies in harness, leaving the family in sudden penury. The underlying purpose is to mitigate an unforeseen financial crisis and to ensure that the family is not left without means of subsistence. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushma Gosain & Others vs Union of India & Others, (1989) 4 SCC 468, authoritatively held that compassionate appointment must be provided without delay, as the very rationale of the scheme is to relieve the family from immediate destitution caused by the death of the sole breadwinner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasised that appointments should be made promptly and that [2026:RJ-JP:12728] (4 of 6) [CW-4908/2026] the creation of supernumerary posts, if necessary, is permissible to serve the humanitarian purpose of the scheme. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also cautioned that undue delay defeats the very object of compassionate appointment, rendering such claims unsustainable. 9. In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State of Haryana & Others, (1994) 4 SCC 138, the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of public employment and is intended solely to enable the family of a deceased employee, left in dire financial straits, to tide over the immediate financial crisis caused by the sudden death of the breadwinner. It is not a source of permanent recruitment or a vested right that can be exercised at any time in the future. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere death in service does not automatically entitle the family to compassionate employment, and that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after the lapse of a reasonable period, because after such delay the very purpose of providing immediate relief is lost. The entitlement, thus, depends on immediacy of need and the financial condition of the family at the time of the employee’s death, not on abstract entitlement. 10. The above legal position has been reiterated and fortified in subsequent decisions. In the case V. Sivamurthy vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, (2008) 13 SCC 730, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment is an exception designed to meet a transient crisis and cannot be invoked years after the death of the employee. The Court categorically observed that when a family survives for a long [2026:RJ-JP:12728] (5 of 6) [CW-4908/2026] period after the demise of the employee, it must be presumed that the immediate financial crisis no longer exists. Claims raised after considerable delay, therefore, cannot be entertained, as they convert a humanitarian exception into a vested employment entitlement, which is impermissible in law. 11. More recently, in State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari & Others, (2025) 5 SCC 712, after having regard to the object of granting compassionate appointment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reaffirmed that prolonged delay, whether attributable to the claimant or to administrative inaction, creates a strong presumption that the family has overcome the initial financial hardship. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment cannot be granted as a matter of course after years have elapsed and such belated claims are non- maintainable unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. It was further held that no vested right accrues to a dependent merely because an application was once made. 12. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the petitioner has approached this Court after a long lapse of time. The very fact that the family has managed to subsist for several years after the death of the employee clearly indicates that the immediate financial crisis, which alone justifies compassionate appointment, no longer subsists. 13. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that granting compassionate appointment after such a prolonged delay would amount to converting a welfare-oriented exception into a regular [2026:RJ-JP:12728] (6 of 6) [CW-4908/2026] source of employment, thereby violating the constitutional mandate of equal opportunity in public employment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently deprecated such an approach and has cautioned that compassionate appointment must not be allowed to become a parallel mode of recruitment. 14. The contention of the petitioner that rejection of the claim is arbitrary cannot be accepted. Adherence to the settled legal principles governing compassionate appointment is neither arbitrary, nor unreasonable. On the contrary, granting relief in the present case would run counter to the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and would undermine the very purpose of the scheme. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is barred by inordinate and unexplained delay and is wholly unsustainable in law. The respondents have committed no illegality or arbitrariness in rejecting claim of the petitioner claiming appointment on compassionate ground. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 17. Pending interim applications, if any, stand disposed off. (ANAND SHARMA),J MANOJ NARWANI /46