[2026:RJ-JP:23131-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 724/2025 1 Smt. Kishni Devi W/o Late Sh. Chhitar Mal, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Ward No. 5, Near Ramdev Mandir, Dhani Karigaran, Phulera, District Jaipur- 303338, Rajasthan 2 Smt. Pinki Devi Verma W/o Sh. Ratan Lal Verma, Aged About 38 Years, D/o Late Sh. Chhitar Mal (Fitter C And W) Phulera Grade C, R/o Ward No. 5, Near Ramdev Mandir, Dhani Karigaran, Phulera, District Jaipur- 303338, Rajasthan ----Petitioners/Applicants Versus 1 Union Of India, Through General Manager, North Western Railway, Hq Office, Jawahar Circle, Jagatpura, Jaipur - 302017, Rajasthan 2 Chief Personnel Officer, North Western Railway, Hq Office, Jawahar Circle, Jagatpura, Jaipur- 302017, Rajasthan. 3 The Divisional Rail Manager (E), Power House Road, N. W. Rly, Jaipur- 302016, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Satish Kumar Bhargava For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas, Senior Advocate, ASG assisted by Ms. Anushka Khandelwal and Ms. Niti Jain Bhandari HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Date of conclusion of arguments : 16.03.2026. Date on which the judgment was reserved : 16.03.2026. Whether the full order or only the operative part is pronounced : Full Judgment Date of pronouncement : 12.06.2026. [2026:RJ-JP:23131-DB] (2 of 10) [CW-724/2025] JUDGMENT 1. Instant D.B. Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioners aggrieved from order dated 21.10.2024 in original application No. 585/2024 (Jaipur) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred as "The Tribunal"). 2. The present D.B. Civil Writ Petition has been filed seeking the following relief:- "It is, therefore prayed that the present D.B. Civil Writ Petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed. The order dated 21.10.2024 (Annexure-1) passed by the learned Tribunal in OA No.585/2024 may kindly be quashed and set aside. Prayer made in the original application may kindly be allowed. Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioners. Cost of this writ petition may also be awarded in favor of the petitioners." 2. Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioners:- 2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that husband of Petitioner No. 1 was in service of Railways and while in service, he expired on 26.06.1998 due to prolonged illness. He also submitted that at the time of death, the daughter of Petitioner No. 1 was 4th passed and below 18 years of age, and the respondents had communicated that for appointment, it was required to have at least an 8th standard pass certificate and must crossed age of 18 years. He further submitted that Petitioner No. 2 acquired the Secondary School Certificate in the year 2013 and immediately applied for compassionate appointment, but the same was not considered by the respondents, and the aggrieved [2026:RJ-JP:23131-DB] (3 of 10) [CW-724/2025] petitioners filed an OA before the Central Appellate Tribunal, which was dismissed on 21.10.2024 only on the ground that there was delay on the part of the petitioners. He further submitted that the petitioners had approached the respondents on time, but the same was not considered at the relevant time due to underage of petitioner No.2 and when the petitioner No.2 has applied for compassionate appointment, her case was not considered and was turned down on the ground of delay. He also submitted that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to help the family in harness and also to provide financial support, but in the instant case, continuous refusal by the respondents forced the petitioners to approach the Tribunal and, further, after dismissal of OA by the Tribunal, instant writ is filed before this Hon’ble Court. He also submitted that the petitioners have made out a case for interference, as both are females and not having any means of livelihood and only seeking consideration of the candidature of Petitioner No. 2 for appointment on compassionate grounds, in lieu of untimely death of husband of petitioner No.1. 3. Submissions on Behalf of the Respondents :- 3.1 Aforesaid contentions were opposed by the learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG) and submitted that after the death of Chhitarmal, Petitioner No. 1 has filed an application for consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds as the daughter of Petitioner No. 1 has not attained the age of 18 years, and same was returned with advice to submit when petitioner No.2 attained age of 18 years. He also submitted that thereafter, the application was filed on 01.01.2018 (30.12.2017), but there [2026:RJ-JP:23131-DB] (4 of 10) [CW-724/2025] was delay of more than 20 years and was not considered on the ground of delay. He further referred Master Circular No. 16 (Annexure R-5) and submitted that due to delay in submission of application i.e. beyond 5 years, the proposal cannot be considered by the respondent(s), hence no case is made out in favoe of petitioners. He also submitted that petitioners have not challenged the provision, therefore, the O.A. was rightly dismissed by the Tribunal. 4. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Additional Solicitor General. Perused the material placed on record. 5. Facts of the Case :- 5.1. Admittedly, the husband of Petitioner No. 1 and father of Petitioner No. 2 expired on 26.06.1998, and an application for compassionate appointment was filed by Petitioner No. 1, (Annexure R/1), to which the respondents replied on 10.09.1999 (Annexure R/2). The Petitioner No. 1 was informed that the daughter of Petitioner No. 1 can be considered for compassionate appointment only if she passed Class VIII and attained the age of 18 years. Thereafter, an application was submitted on 01.01.2018 (30.12.2017). The respondents have replied vide letter dated 29.01.2020 (Annexure 4), stating that the application has been filed after a substantial delay, i.e., 13 years after Petitioner No. 2 has attained the age of majority, and 20 years of the death of employee. 5.2. The petitioners have filed O.A. No. 585/2024 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur, which dismissed the O.A. on 21.10.2024, and the order is reproduced as under:- [2026:RJ-JP:23131-DB] (5 of 10) [CW-724/2025] "It is the case of the applicant that her father late Shri Chhitarmal was working as Fitter in Carriage Department of Western Railway till his death on 25.09.1998. Consequent upon his death, the widow (mother of the applicant) applied for compassionate appointment vide application dated 18.11.1998 and the respondents vide their letter dated 10.09.1999 informed her that for appointment on compassionate ground the minimum educational qualification is 8th class pass and since the present applicant at that time was only 4th pass, She will be eligible only after attaining the age of 18 years and on passing 8th class. So, after passing the 10th class applicant again applied for compassionate appointment vide her application dated 26.04.2014 and it was replied by the respondents vide their letter dated 29.01.2020 stating that "your application for compassionate appointment 20 years after the death of Shri Chhitar Mal and 13 years after attaining maturity is not justifiable for the compassionate appointment" Thereafter, applicant again submitted his application on 30.01.2023 attempting to explain that the delay was on the part of the respondents. A legal notice was also served on the respondents 01.08.2023 and in their reply dated 04.09.2023, the respondents have stated that letters/application dated 26.04.2018 & 19.05.2014 was not received by them and application dated 30.12.2017 which they have received was replied vide their letter dated 29.01.2020. They further stated that the deen or the come dro read deceased employee vide letters dated 29.01.202 and 30.01.2023. Shri Manu Bhargava, learned counsel for the applicant reiterates the stand taken by the respondents in their letter dated 04.09.2023 stating that the decision of competent authority was communicated to the widow of the deceased employee vide letters dated 29.01.2020 and 30.01.2023. He further states that appointment on compassionate is not a legal right and relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab Haryana in the case of Umesh Nagpal. The father of the applicant died way back in 1998, the application of the mother of the present applicant for compassionate appointment was considered by the respondents and being ineligible on account of minimum educational qualification she did not succeed. The present applicant at that time was only 4th class pass and under 18 years of age. However, she applied for grant of compassionate appointment in 2014 but the same was rejected as more than 20 years had passed since the death of her father. The learned counsel for the applicant contented that the respondents rejected her application in 2020 which was filed in 2014 so there was no delay on the part of the [2026:RJ-JP:23131-DB] (6 of 10) [CW-724/2025] applicant, even if this argument is committed then also there was ordinate delay as the employee died in 1998 and the applicant filed application for compassionate appointment in 2014, even at that time 16 years had passed whereas she attained the age of majority much earlier as she was about 9-10 years old in 1998 as the time of death of her father. Besides she remained mum for about six years from 2014 to 2020 between the period when she filed the application for compassionate appointment and when she received the communication rejecting her application. She has approached this Tribunal now in 2024 which is about 26 years after the death of his father. Compassionate appointment is not granted as succession or inheritance, time is of utmost essence as the compassionate appointment is given to help the family of the deceased employee to tide over the financial crisis suffered at the time of the death of the breadwinner on his sudden demise. Any consideration of the applicant 26 years after the death of her father would defeat the very purpose of the scheme of compassionate appointment. It emerges that the respondents had considered the case of the applicant and decided the same in a valid and legal manner as such there is no infirmity." 6. Relevant Policy Governing Compassionate Appointment 6.1. Learned Additional Solicitor General has referred the Master Circular No. 16, (Annexure R/5), wherein the time limit for seeking compassionate appointment is provided and same is reproduced as under:-w TIME LIMIT FOR MAKING COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: a. Normally all appointments on compassionate grounds should be made within a period of five years from the date of occurrence of the event entitling the eligible person to be appointed on this ground. This period of five years may be relaxed by the General Manager, subject to the following conditions: i. The powers shall be exercised personally by the General Manager. It shall not be delegated to a lower authority. ii. The case should not be more than ten years old as reckoned from the date of death. iii. The widow of the deceased employee should not have remarried. iv. The benefit of compassionate appointment should not have been given at any time to any other member of the family or to a near relative of the [2026:RJ-JP:23131-DB] (7 of 10) [CW-724/2025] deceased employee. v. The circumstances of the case should be such as to warrant relaxation of the time limit of five years. vi. The reasons for relaxing the time limit should be placed on record. vii. The request for compassionate appointment should have been received by the Railway Administration as soon as the son/ daughter to be considered for compassionate appointment has become a major, say within a maximum period of one year. The above delegation of powers is current upto 31.03.1992. [No. E(NG)II/84/ RC-1/26 dated 18.04.1985 (RBE 112/1985 and E(NG)II/84/RC-1/26 dated 18.4.1990. (RBE 68/1990)] b. Where death occurred more than 10 years back and also in cases where death took place between 5- 10 years back but the conditions stipulated in para V (a) above are not fulfilled, a compassionate appointment is not within the competency of the General Manager except in the case of loss of life in course of duty or getting crippled in the course of duty. However, in such cases, if compassionate appointment is otherwise admissible and if after careful examination of the case it is found that there are special features or circumstances justifying relaxation of time limit as also criteria, the cases could be considered by the Railway Administration for approaching the Railway Board for relaxation of as a special case. Such a reference to the Railway Board should be made by the Railway Administration only with the personal approval of the General Manager. [No. E(NG)II/87/RC-1/57 dated 21.8.1987. (RBE 218/1987)] 7. Issue for Consideration :- 7.1. The ground for dismissal of the petitioners’ claim is delay. The very purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to the bereaved family, and if such appointment is sought belatedly, the object of the scheme stands defeated. It is also settled that where an application is made after an inordinate delay, the purpose for which the provision of compassionate appointment exists already stands frustrated. The purpose of compassionate appointment was recently considered by the [2026:RJ-JP:23131-DB] (8 of 10) [CW-724/2025] Hon’ble Supreme Court in Canara Bank v. Ajith Kumar G.K., reported in 2025 INSC 184, wherein reliance was placed upon the observations made in case of Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh, reported in (1997) 8 SCC 85. The policy to appoint a dependant family member of an employee who has died-in-harness or has been medically rendered unfit to perform further job, thereby leaving the family in utter penury, is not of too distant an origin. Going by law reports, the policy seems to have originated during the seventies of the last century and gained momentum in the following decades with this Court laying down guidelines from time to time for grant of compassionate appointment. The rationale for such appointment has been explained in Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh in the following words: “8. The rule of appointments to public service is that they should be on merits and through open invitation. It is the normal route through which one can get into a public employment. However, as every rule can have exceptions, there are a few exceptions to the said rule also which have been evolved to meet certain contingencies. As per one such exception relief is provided to the bereaved family of a deceased employee by accommodating one of his dependants in a vacancy. The object is to give succour to the family which has been suddenly plunged into penury due to the untimely death of its sole breadwinner. This Court has observed time and again that the object of providing such ameliorating relief should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment. 8. Findings :- 8.1. In the instant case, the death occurred in June 1998, and at that time the application submitted by Petitioner No. 1 was only for consideration of the candidature of Petitioner No. 2 after attaining the age of majority. The Petitioner No. 2 attained adulthood in the year 2002 or 2003, but no application was filed till 2014 or 2017. After rejection of the petitioners’ claim on [2026:RJ-JP:23131-DB] (9 of 10) [CW-724/2025] 29.01.2020, the O.A. was filed only in the year 2024. The reason for the delay in filing the OA was mentioned that last communication was made on 30.01.2023. 9. Analysis and discussions- 9.1. The material on record clearly indicate that despite the communication dated 10.09.1999 issued by the respondents, the application was made only in the years 2014 or in 2017. The respondents have clearly taken a stand that they have not received any application dated 26.04.2014 or 19.05.2014, thus it is doubtful whether any application is submitted in year 2014. The first application received by them was on 01.01.1998, (dated 30.12.2017). Thus, considering the entire material, the respondents furnished a reply to the notice for demand of justice on 04.09.2023, and the same has been submitted by the petitioners with the writ petition. Admittedly, no application is filed between 2002/2003 to 2014 meaning thereby there was negligence in pursuing the candidature of petitioner No.2. The material indicate that the respondents have acknowledged the application dated 30.12.2017 and on basis of same considered the case of petitioner. Thus, there is no justification part of the petitioners, so as to consider the case of compassionate appointment. 9.2. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and it is meant only to provide immediate financial relief and cannot be claimed after lapse of time when crisis is over. Identical issues were considered in case of State of Haryana Vs. Rani Devi reported [2026:RJ-JP:23131-DB] (10 of 10) [CW-724/2025] in JT 1996 (6) 646, State Bank of India Vs. Raj Kumar AIR ONLINE 2010 SC 93, Govt. of India Vs. P. Venkatesh AIR ONLINE 2019 SC 363 and State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari (2023) 5 SCC 712. 10. Conclusion:- 10.1. Having considered the legal position as referred herein- above, the petitioners have no right to claim compassionate appointment after lapse of a substantial period of time particularly when the husband of Petitioner No. 1 died on 26.06.1998. The present writ petition is being considered almost 28 years after death of husband of petitioner No.1, and the entire emergency arising from such death has already been over. Thus, the petitioners have failed to make out a case for compassionate appointment of Petitioner No. 2. 11. In view of the discussion made herein above, the writ petition preferred by the petitioners is hereby dismissed, along with all pending applications, if any. 12. No order as to costs. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN ),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J 14-S/MONU