[2026:RJ-JP:10801] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3722/2026 IN THE MATTER OF:- Ashish Kumar (Aged about 30 years), S/o Late Sh. Rohtash Singh, R/o D-21, Namberdar Gali, Gazipur Village, Delhi-110096. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan, through the Principal Secretory, Department of Home, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur-302005. 2. The Director General of Police, Rajasthan Police Head Quarters, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005. 3. The Commandant, 8th Battalion, B Company, Rajasthan Armed Constabulary (IR), Gazipur, New Delhi-110096. 4. Sh. Naveen S/o Late Sh. Rohtash Singh, R/o Village Rohna, Tehshil Kharkhoda, District Sonipat, Haryana- 131402. (Rival Claimant for Compassionate Appointment) ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Kumar Advocate on behalf of Mr. Surendar Meel Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment 13/03/2026 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 Constable with the respondents. 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. [2026:RJ-JP:10801] (2 of 7) [CW-3722/2026] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Late Shri Rohtash Singh (Belt No. 648), father of the petitioner was working on the substantive post of Constable with 8th Battalion, B Company, Rajasthan Armed Constabulary (IR), Gazipur, New Delhi. However, he expired on 31.01.2018 while in service, leaving behind his widow, one son (petitioner) and two daughters. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that deceased father of the petitioner initially married with one Smt. Krishna on 13.07.1986 and out of that wedlock, one son, namely, Shri Naveen was born. However, the said marriage could not subsist for long and was dissolved by obtaining divorce from village panchayat. Thereafter, deceased father of the petitioner solemnised second marriage with mother of the petitioner, namely, Smt. Kamlesh Devi @ Adari Deb on 18.12.1991. Out of the said wedlock, three children, i.e., the petitioner and two daughters were born. 4. It is further contended that after death of deceased- employee, Smt. Krishna (first wife of deceased-employee) and Shri Naveen (son born out of first marriage) initiated succession proceedings before the concerned court wherein ultimately, succession certificate in respect of family pension and service benefits was granted in their favour by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kharkhoda, Sonipat vide judgment and decree dated 14.11.2025. The petitioner submitted application seeking appointment on compassionate ground along with all other documents to the respondents but the same has been rejected orally by the respondents on the ground of above succession proceedings. It is pertinent to mention here that being [2026:RJ-JP:10801] (3 of 7) [CW-3722/2026] aggrieved by the aforesaid succession proceedings, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh which is pending adjudication. 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. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the material on record. 6. The relevant facts, which are not in dispute, disclose that the deceased employee died in harness on 31.01.2018 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. 7. 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 [2026:RJ-JP:10801] (4 of 7) [CW-3722/2026] survives the settled legal principles governing compassionate appointment under public service jurisprudence. 8. 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. 9. 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 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. 10. 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 [2026:RJ-JP:10801] (5 of 7) [CW-3722/2026] 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. 11. 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 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. 12. 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 [2026:RJ-JP:10801] (6 of 7) [CW-3722/2026] 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. 13. 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. 14. 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 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. 15. 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 [2026:RJ-JP:10801] (7 of 7) [CW-3722/2026] Supreme Court and would undermine the very purpose of the scheme. 16. 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. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 18. Pending interim applications, if any, stand disposed off. (ANAND SHARMA),J MANOJ NARWANI /54