RANCHI, India, March 4 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Jan. 3:

1. Heard the parties.

2. This petitioner claims compassionate appointment and also prays to quash the rejection order of the consideration of compassionate appointment of the petitioner.

3. I am not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner in this case on the ground that admittedly, the father of the petitioner died in the year 1989, the entire family has survived for more than 36 years. Survival of the family for more than 36 years itself defeats the very purpose of grant of compassionate appointment.

4. After passage of long time, the compassion got diminished. The delay defeats the claim for compassionate appointment. The Hon'ble Supreme in the case of "State of W.B. v. Debabrata Tiwari", reported in (2025) 5 SCC 712, at para 35 had 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 [Haryana SEB v. Hakim Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 85 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 31] 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 hardship faced by the dependants 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.

5. Admittedly, at the time of death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner was aged about 03 years and could not have been appointed then also. Further, the case of the petitioner was rejected vide Memo No. 82 dated 24.01.2020 and after six years, the petitioner has approached this Court, challenging the same. Cumulatively considering all these facts, thus, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.