[2026:RJ-JP:25283-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1985/2026 URN: CW / 4319U / 2026 Shankar Lal Mehra S/o Late Shri Ghasi Ram Mehra, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Plot No.1445, Mehra Colony, Near Ganga Pol Gate, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Expenditure (Government Of India), New Delhi. 110001 2. The Comptroller And Auditor General (C And AG ) Of India, 9 Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, New Delhi. 110124 3. The Principal Account General (A And E), Indian Audit And Account Department, Rajasthan, Janpath, Jaipur. 302005 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Hada For Respondent(s) : Ms. Jaya Pandey Pathak with Ms. Shefali Sharma Mr. V.P. Mathur HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 07/07/2026 By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of the order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, 'learned Tribunal') whereby, the Original Application No.661/2025 filed by him was dismissed on account of barred by limitation. The relevant facts in brief are that father of the petitioner- Shri Ghasi Ram Mehra expired on 27.11.2007 while he was working as Record Sorter with the respondents. Thereafter, the [2026:RJ-JP:25283-DB] (2 of 9) [CW-1985/2026] petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. However, his case was not recommended by the Screening Committee as per the decision taken in its Meeting dated 05.05.2009 for the reasons stated therein. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 06.03.2024; however, vide letter dated 10.06.2024, he was informed that his case was not recommended for compassionate appointment pursuant to decision of the Screening Committee dated 05.05.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an Original Application before the learned Tribunal seeking compassionate appointment which came to be rejected by the learned Tribunal vide order impugned dated 28.11.2025, as supra. Assailing the order dated 28.11.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Screening Committee did not assign any reason while rejecting his candidature for appointment except that he was not found fit. He further contends that the learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the Original Application only on account of delay without appreciating that non-grant of compassionate appointment furnished a recurring cause of action. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order impugned dated 28.11.2025 be quashed and set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the learned Tribunal for decision afresh on merit of the case. Per contra, learned counsels for the respondents, submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner on account of limitation. They further submitted that it is misconceived on the part of the petitioner to contend that denial of compassionate appointment furnishes a recurring cause of action. They, in support of their [2026:RJ-JP:25283-DB] (3 of 9) [CW-1985/2026] submissions, rely upon judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari and Others: (2025) 5 SCC 712, M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs. Anil Badyakar and Others: (2009) 13 SCC 112 and a co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court dated 30.06.2025 passed in the case of Madhur Manish vs. The Union of India and Others: D.B Civil Writ Petition No.18113/2024. They, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard. Considered. The undisputed facts are that the father of the petitioner namely Shri Ghasi Ram Mehra expired on 27.11.2007 while in service of the respondents. The petitioner was not found fit for compassionate appointment by the Screening Committee of the respondents in its Meeting dated 05.05.2009 and his case was not recommended for such appointment. Even, as per the Original Application filed by the petitioner, thereafter, he slept over the matter and arose from slumber as late as in the month of March, 2024 when he submitted a representation requesting the respondents to extend him the benefit of compassionate appointment whereupon, he was communicated vide letter dated 10.06.2024 by the respondents that his candidature was already rejected way back in the year 2009. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the learned Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the Original Application filed by the petitioner in the year 2025, i.e., with a delay of almost 16 years from the date of rejection of his candidature, on the ground of barred by limitation. Their Lordships, in the case of State of West Bengal (supra) while allowing the appeal preferred against a Division [2026:RJ-JP:25283-DB] (4 of 9) [CW-1985/2026] Bench judgment of the High Court of Calcutta setting aside the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the respondents and issuing a direction to the Director of Local Bodies and other concerned authorities to consider the case of the respondents for compassionate appointment, were pleased to held as under: “35. Considering the second question referred to above, in the first instance, regarding whether applications for compassionate appointment could be considered after a delay of several years, we are of the view that, in a case where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the part of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. Further, the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased, may have changed, for the better, since the time of the death of the government employee. In such circumstances, courts or other relevant authorities are to be guided by the fact that for such prolonged period of delay, the family of the deceased was able to sustain themselves, most probably by availing gainful employment from some other source. Granting compassionate appointment in such a case, as noted by this Court in Hakim Singh would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession which is contrary to the Constitution. Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to the financial condition and [2026:RJ-JP:25283-DB] (5 of 9) [CW-1985/2026] hardship faced by the dependents of the deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the government employee. 41. Applying the said ratio to the facts of the present case, we hold that the respondent-writ petitioners, upon submitting their applications in the year 2006-2005 did nothing further to pursue the matter, till the year 2015 i.e. for a period of ten years. Notwithstanding the tardy approach of the authorities of the appellant State in dealing with their applications, the respondent-writ petitioners delayed approaching the High Court seeking a writ in the nature of a mandamus against the authorities of the State. In fact, such a prolonged delay in approaching the High Court, may even be regarded as a waiver of a remedy, as discernible by the conduct of the respondent-writ petitioners. Such a delay would disentitle the respondent-writ petitioners to the discretionary relief Under Article 226 of the Constitution. Further, the order of the High Court dated 17-3-2015, whereby the writ petition filed by some of the respondents herein was disposed of with a direction to the Director of Local Bodies, Government of West Bengal to take a decision as to the appointment of the respondent-writ petitioners, cannot be considered to have the effect of revival of the cause of action. [2026:RJ-JP:25283-DB] (6 of 9) [CW-1985/2026] 46. The sense of immediacy in the matter of compassionate appointment has been lost in the present case. This is attributable to the authorities of the appellant State as well as the respondent-writ petitioners. Now, entertaining a claim which was made in 2005-2006, in the year 2023, would be of no avail, because admittedly, the respondent-writ petitioners have been able to eke out a living even though they did not successfully get appointed to the services of the Municipality on compassionate grounds. Hence, we think that this are therefore not fit cases to direct that the claim of the respondent-writ petitioners for appointments on compassionate grounds, be considered or entertained.” In the case of M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (supra) involving the issue of delay in approaching the Court seeking compassionate appointment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to held as under: “19. The principles indicated above would give a clear indication that the compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over. In the instant case the employee died in harness in the year 1981 and after a long squabble by the dependents of the deceased, they arrived at a settlement that the son-in-law of the second daughter who is unemployed may request for appointment on compassionate grounds. The request so made was accepted by the Personal Manager of the [2026:RJ-JP:25283-DB] (7 of 9) [CW-1985/2026] Company subject to the approval of the Director of the Company. The Director (P), who is the competent authority for post facto approval, keeping in view the object and purpose of providing compassionate appointment has cancelled the provisional appointment on the ground that nearly after 12 years from the date of death of the employee such an appointment could not have been offered to the so called dependent of the deceased employee. In our considered view, the decision of the employer was in consonance with Umesh Kumar Nagpal's case and the same should not have been interfered with by the High Court.” In the case of Madhur Manish (supra), while considering the challenge laid to dismissal of the Original Application by the learned Tribunal filed by the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment, this Court, relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of State of Maharashtra and Another vs. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate (since after marriage Smt. Madhuri Santosh Koli): 2022 OnLine SC 1327 as also in the case of Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Hakim Singh: (1997) 8 SCC 85, held as under: “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 [2026:RJ-JP:25283-DB] (8 of 9) [CW-1985/2026] Tribunal. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed.” From the conspectus of aforesaid precedential law, an unexceptional legal position emerges that the compassionate appointment cannot be made an alternative source of recruitment and its laud object is to grant immediate succour to the family in distress on account of sudden demise of the sole bread earner and delay defeats the right. It is a well settled legal doctrine that ‘vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt’ (The law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights). In the instant case, as already observed, father of the petitioner had expired way back in the year 2007 and his candidature for compassionate appointment came to be rejected by the respondents in the month of May, 2009 but, he submitted a representation, i.e., in the year 2024 with a delay of almost 15 years and thereafter, had filed the instant Original Application in the year 2025, i.e., with an inordinate delay of almost 16 years. Insofar as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner qua the denial of compassionate appointment furnishing a recurring cause of action is concerned, we find the same to be too spacious worth acceptance. The recurring/continuous cause of action arises when the wrong does not come to an end by a single or isolated act but is repeated periodically and each repetition furnishes a fresh and distinct cause of action. However, in the instant case, rejection of his candidature by the respondents for compassionate appointment by the Screening Committee vide order dated 05.05.2009 furnished one time cause of action to him [2026:RJ-JP:25283-DB] (9 of 9) [CW-1985/2026] to assail the same and by no stretch of imagination, it could have been reckoned as recurring or continuous cause of action. So far as another submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as to the decision dated 05.05.2009 being non-speaking is concerned, since, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application filed thereagainst only on the ground of limitation, it was not open for it to have examined merits of the rejection order. However, after going through the reasons assigned by the Screening Committee in the decision dated 05.05.2009, we are not persuaded to record a finding that it did not furnish reason(s) for denial of compassionate appointment to the petitioner. In the aforesaid factual context and in the backdrop of aforesaid precedential law, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal did not err in dismissing the Original Application on the ground of limitation. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being deviod of merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J 58/DIKSHA