W.P.(C) 3034/2014 Page 1 of 23

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 08.04.2026

Date of decision:18.05.2026

Uploaded on: 18.05.2026

+ W.P.(C) 3034/2014, CM APPL. 6342/2014

M/S BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD. .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sandeep Prabhakar, Sr. Adv. with

Mr. Vikas Mehta, Advs.

versus

VINOD KUMAR .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Pankaj Tripathi, Mr. Gaurav

Antil, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

JUDGMENT

SHAIL JAIN, J.

1. The present Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the Award dated 22nd March,

2014 (hereinafter also referred to as ‘impugned Award’), passed by the

learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi,

arising out of Industrial Dispute (I.D.) No. 14/11 between the

Respondent/Claimant and the Petitioner/Management, whereby the learned

Tribunal allowed the Respondent/Claimant's claim and subsequently

directed the Petitioner/Management to consider the Respondent/Claimant's

case for Compassionate Appointment on the merits.

W.P.(C) 3034/2014 Page 2 of 23

2. The present dispute arises from the claim raised by the Respondent

seeking appointment on compassionate grounds consequent upon the demise

of his father, who was employed by the Petitioner Organisation. The

Respondent’s request for compassionate appointment, having not been

acceded to at the departmental level, the appropriate Government referred

the industrial dispute for adjudication to the learned Industrial Tribunal on

the issue as to whether the demand for compassionate appointment was

justified. Upon adjudication, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned

Award holding the demand of the Respondent to be justified and

consequently directed the Petitioner Organisation to consider the

Respondent’s case for appointment on compassionate grounds in accordance

with law. Aggrieved by the said Award, the Petitioner has invoked the writ

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. The brief factual background leading to the filing of the present

Petition is set out hereunder-

A. Late Sh. Sunder, father of the Respondent herein, was

employed as a Lineman with the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB).

Pursuant to the restructuring and unbundling of DVB into successor

DISCOMs in the year 2001, the services of the said employee stood

transferred to the Petitioner/Management on an “as is where is” basis.

B. On 26th August, 2003, while discharging his official duties,

Late Sh. Sunder suffered a fatal accident and died due to electrocution

during the course of employment. In respect of the said incident, FIR

W.P.(C) 3034/2014 Page 3 of 23

No. 232/2003 also came to be registered at Police Station Anand

Parbat, Delhi.

C. Following the demise of the employee, all admissible terminal

and retirement benefits amounting to approximately Rs. 4,22,629/-

(Rupees Four Lakh Twenty Two Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty

Nine only) were released in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased

employee. The said amount included GPF, gratuity, EDLIS, DRF,

widow fund and other statutory dues. In addition, thereto,

compensation amounting to Rs. 3,23,910/- (Rupees Three Lakh Twenty

Three Thousand Nine Hundred and Ten only) was also paid under the

provisions of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923.

D. Further, the widow of the deceased employee had also been

receiving a family pension of approximately Rs. 6,600/- (Rupees Six

Thousand and Six Hundred only) per month.

E. The Respondent, being the son of the deceased employee,

submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment for the

first time only on 10th February, 2010, i.e., after a lapse of

approximately six and a half years from the date of death of the

employee. The said request was rejected by the Petitioner/Management.

F. Aggrieved thereby, the Respondent approached the

Conciliation Officer. Upon failure of the conciliation proceedings, the

appropriate Government referred the industrial dispute for adjudication

to the learned Industrial Tribunal, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, vide the

following terms of reference:

"Whether the demand of Akhil Bhartiya Karamchari Trade Union

(Regd. No.4366) regarding appointment of Sh. Vinod Kumar S/o.

W.P.(C) 3034/2014 Page 4 of 23

late Sh. Sunder in BSES Yamuna Power Ltd on compassionate

ground is justified? If so, what directions are necessary in this

respect?"

G. Pursuant thereto, the dispute came to be registered as ID No.

14/11, wherein the Respondent sought appointment on compassionate

grounds in place of his deceased father.

H. The Petitioner/Management contested the claim by filing a

written statement, inter alia, raising the following objections:

a. The claim was barred by limitation under Clause 16(j) of the

Delhi Vidyut Board Scheme for Compassionate Appointments, 1999

(hereinafter also referred to as the ‘Scheme’), which prescribes a

maximum period of two years;

b. The family was not in financial distress or indigent condition as

required under Clause 16(c) of the Scheme;

c. No regular vacancies were available in Group C or D posts, and

recruitment was not being undertaken.

d. The Respondent was not eligible for Group C posts, being only

a matriculate.

e. Compassionate appointment is not a vested or automatic right.

I. The learned Tribunal, however, vide the impugned Award, held

the claim of the Respondent to be justified and directed the

Petitioner/Management to consider the case of the Respondent for

compassionate appointment on merits within a stipulated period.

J. Aggrieved by the said Award, the Petitioner has preferred the

present Writ Petition seeking, inter alia, the following reliefs:

“a) a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate

writ/order/direction quashing/setting aside the impugned award

W.P.(C) 3034/2014 Page 5 of 23

dated 22.03.2014 passed by the Court of Shri Mahavir Singhal, Ld.

POIT, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in ID No.14/2011;

b) pass any other order or direction as deemed fit and proper in the

facts and circumstances of the case.”

4. In addition to the aforesaid, the grounds set out hereunder have been

relied upon by the Petitioner in respect to the reliefs claimed by the

Petitioner Organisation.

A. That the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate Clauses 5(a) and

16(c) of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment, which require

the family of the deceased employee to be in indigent and immediate

financial distress. The material on record clearly demonstrated that the

family had received substantial terminal benefits along with family

pension and, therefore, did not fall within the category of financial

destitution contemplated under the Scheme.

B. The learned Tribunal failed to consider that the Respondent had

been gainfully employed since the year 2007 and had himself admitted

to intermittent employment, thereby negating the existence of any

continuing financial crisis warranting compassionate appointment.

C. That under Clauses 7(a) and 7(b) of the Scheme, compassionate

appointment could only be granted against existing regular vacancies

within the prescribed 5% quota for direct recruitment, whereas

admittedly, no vacancies in Group ‘C’ or Group ‘D’ posts were

available or being filled by the Petitioner/Management.

D. That the Respondent, being only a matriculate, was ineligible

for appointment to Group ‘C’ posts and, in any event, no vacancy

existed in the Group ‘D’ cadre.

W.P.(C) 3034/2014 Page 6 of 23

E. The claim was hopelessly barred under Clause 16(j) of the

Scheme, which prescribes a limitation period of two years, whereas the

Respondent raised the claim after an unexplained delay of

approximately six and a half years from the death of the employee.

F. The learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the settled legal

position that compassionate appointment is not a vested right, but

merely an exception intended to address immediate financial hardship

arising from the death of an employee.

G. That the finding of the learned Tribunal treating the existence

of a 5% quota as creating an entitlement to compassionate appointment

is contrary to the Scheme and based on an erroneous interpretation of

Clause 7(a), which specifically mandates the existence of vacancies.

H. The impugned Award suffers from perversity, non-application

of mind and findings contrary to the evidence available on record.

5. It may also be noted that, both before this Court as well as the learned

Tribunal, the consistent stand of the Respondent has been as follows-

A. The family of the deceased employee was financially dependent

upon him and was left in financial distress after his demise.

B. The Respondent, upon attaining majority in the year 2005,

applied for a compassionate appointment and continuously pursued his

claim through representations and intervention of the Union.

C. That the Respondent fulfils the eligibility criteria for

appointment to a Group ‘D’ post and is entitled to compassionate

appointment under the applicable Scheme.

W.P.(C) 3034/2014 Page 7 of 23

D. The delay in consideration of the claim is attributable to the

Petitioner/Management and cannot be used to defeat the legitimate

claim of the Respondent.

E. That the Respondent remains unemployed or is merely engaged

in daily wage work, and the family continues to suffer financial

hardship.

ISSUES INVOLVED

6. In light of the facts and grounds noted hereinabove, the questions that

arise for consideration before this Court are set out hereunder.

I. Whether the impugned Award is contrary to the settled law that

compassionate appointment is not a vested right but only an exception

meant to provide immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased

employee.

II. Whether the impugned Award suffers from perversity, non-application

of mind or patent illegality warranting interference under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India, and if so, to what relief the parties are

entitled.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

7. As regards the submissions of the parties, the following contentions

were urged on behalf of the Petitioners.

A. It was submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that the learned

Tribunal acted contrary to the Policy for Compassionate Appointment

and the settled principles governing compassionate appointments.

W.P.(C) 3034/2014 Page 8 of 23

Reliance was placed primarily on the admissions made by the

Respondent in his cross-examination.

B. The Petitioner further contended that compassionate

appointment is intended only for indigent families facing immediate

financial hardship, which was absent in the present case. According to

the Petitioner, the Respondent applied nearly 6½ years after the death

of his father, and after the family having received substantial terminal

benefits, compensation and family pension.

C. It was further submitted that, upon considering the terminal

benefits received by the legal heirs of the deceased employee, the

earning members and the family size, the Respondent did not satisfy

the eligibility criteria under Clause 16(c) of the Policy. According to

the Petitioner, the learned Tribunal failed to return any finding on this

crucial aspect.

D. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that

compassionate appointment could only be granted against available

vacancies within the prescribed 5% quota, and that no such vacancy

existed. It was further submitted that the Respondent, being only a

matriculate, was not eligible for a Group ‘C’ post.

E. It was additionally submitted that the claim was barred under

Clause 16(j) of the Policy, as the Respondent admittedly applied for

compassionate appointment only on 10th February, 2010, despite the

death of the employee having occurred on 26th August, 2003.

According to the Petitioner, the contrary finding of the learned Tribunal

was unsupported by any documentary evidence.

W.P.(C) 3034/2014 Page 9 of 23

F. Accordingly, it was submitted that the impugned Award suffers

from perversity and findings contrary to the material on record.

8. In contradistinction, the following submissions were advanced on

behalf of the Respondent/Claimant.

A. It was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that although the

family had received terminal benefits, the same had been expended

towards the marriage expenses of his sister. According to the

Respondent, the family pension of approximately Rs. 6,600/- (Rupees

Six Thousand Six Hundred only) per month was insufficient to

maintain a family of nearly ten members.

B. The Respondent further submitted that his mother subsequently

passed away during the COVID-19 pandemic, following which the

pension also ceased. It was also contended that his brother was no

longer contributing towards household expenses and had been residing

separately.

C. It was submitted that the Respondent was a minor at the time of

the death of his father and attained majority only in the year 2005,

whereafter he approached the Petitioner seeking compassionate

appointment. According to the Respondent, the delay in seeking an

appointment was therefore beyond his control.

D. The Respondent also contended that the Petitioner had intended

to appoint him to a Group ‘D’ post, but the same could not be

processed due to the failure of the Petitioner to prepare the accident

report. It was further submitted that two other persons had been granted

compassionate appointments in the year 2006.

W.P.(C) 3034/2014 Page 10 of 23

E. Lastly, while acknowledging that compassionate appointment is

not a matter of right, the Respondent submitted that he is presently

working merely as a daily wager and requires regular employment for

the sustenance of his family.

ANALYSIS AND REASONING

9. The Court has heard the learned Counsels for the respective parties

and perused the record. At the outset, it is noted that no judgments or

precedents were cited on behalf of the Respondent herein. This Court has,

therefore, proceeded to determine the issues arising for consideration with

reference to the settled principles of law laid down in a catena of decisions

of the High Courts as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

10. Before adverting to the issues framed in the present Petition, it is

apposite to observe that the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and

227 of the Constitution of India, while examining an Award passed by the

Labour Court, is supervisory in nature and circumscribed in scope. It is well

settled that the High Court does not act as an appellate authority over the

findings returned by the Labour Court. Interference is warranted only where

the Award suffers from patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error, or

where material evidence has been ignored. 12.

11. Therefore, the High Court, in writ proceedings, does not re-examine

or re-appreciate the evidence recorded by the Tribunal below, nor does it

substitute its own view for that of the adjudicatory body. The award of the

Labour Court can be set aside only if there is an error apparent on the face of

the record.

W.P.(C) 3034/2014 Page 11 of 23

12. So, while this Court remains conscious of the limitations inherent in

writ jurisdiction, it is equally mindful that findings rendered in disregard of

the governing Scheme, settled legal principles, or admitted evidence cannot

be permitted to sustain merely on considerations of judicial restraint.

NATURE OF COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT

13. At the outset, this Court deems it apposite to observe that the

controversy in the present Petition lies within a narrow but well-settled legal

compass. The dispute does not concern the general desirability of providing

employment to the dependent of a deceased employee, nor does it involve

any challenge to the validity of the applicable Scheme governing

compassionate appointments. The core issue is whether, in the facts

obtaining herein, the learned Industrial Tribunal could have directed the

Petitioner/Management to consider the case of the Respondent for

compassionate appointment despite the admitted delay, the financial position

of the family, and the limitations engrafted in the applicable Scheme.

14. The jurisprudence relating to compassionate appointment has, over

the years, attained a degree of consistency. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has

repeatedly held that compassionate appointment is not a vested or hereditary

right capable of being claimed irrespective of the governing policy or lapse

of time. It constitutes merely an exception to the constitutional mandate of

equality in public employment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution

and is intended only to alleviate the sudden financial crisis arising out of the

death of an employee while in service.

15. Numerous judicial pronouncements, including those rendered by this

Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, have consistently delineated

W.P.(C) 3034/2014 Page 12 of 23

the nature, scope, and object of compassionate appointment, while also

emphasising the conditions precedent governing the grant of such

appointment.

16. In this regard, the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K., [Civil Appeal No. 255 of 2025 arising

out of SLP (Civil) No. 30532 of 2019, decided on 11th February, 2025],

assumes significance, wherein the settled principles governing

compassionate appointment were comprehensively examined. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court reiterated that compassionate appointment is an exception to

the general rule of public employment and is intended only to provide

immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased or medically

incapacitated employee facing sudden financial distress. It was held that

such an appointment is a concession and not a vested or hereditary right, and

therefore, the governing scheme must be strictly construed and complied

with. The Court further observed that indigence and immediate financial

hardship are the foundational requirements for the grant of compassionate

appointment, requiring due consideration of the family’s financial condition,

including terminal benefits, pension and other sources of income. It was

additionally held that applications for compassionate appointment must be

made within a reasonable period, as appointments sought after a substantial

lapse of time defeat the very object of immediate relief, and that vacancies

cannot ordinarily be reserved till a minor dependent attains majority unless

specifically permitted under the scheme. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also

reiterated that compassionate appointment cannot be granted dehors the

applicable rules or contrary to the employer’s policy, and that courts cannot

direct such appointments merely on sympathetic considerations.

W.P.(C) 3034/2014 Page 13 of 23

17. Thus, it clearly emerges that compassionate appointment is neither a

vested nor an automatic right, but merely an exception to the constitutional

mandate of equality in public employment under Articles 14 and 16 of the

Constitution of India. It is further settled that every claim must strictly

conform to the governing scheme and can be considered only where

immediate financial distress arising from the death of the employee in

harness is established, and that delay in seeking such an appointment

materially undermines the very object of providing immediate succour to the

bereaved family.

ON FINANCIAL HARDSHIP AND INDIGENCY

18. For the reasons stated above, any claim for compassionate

appointment must be strictly examined within the four corners of the

applicable policy, since such an appointment constitutes an exception to the

general principles governing public employment and cannot be claimed as

an independent or vested right.

19. In the present case, Clauses 5(a) and 16(c) of the concerned governing

Scheme, which conform to the settled principles governing compassionate

appointment, contemplated such appointment only where the family of the

deceased employee was found to be indigent and in immediate financial

distress. In turn, the object of the Scheme, read as a whole, is to provide

immediate relief to a family left in penury due to the death or medical

invalidation of the employee.

20. The governing Scheme, therefore, mandates an objective assessment

of the financial condition of the family.

W.P.(C) 3034/2014 Page 14 of 23

21. The material placed on record in the present matter demonstrates that

the family of the deceased employee received terminal and statutory benefits

aggregating to more than Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh only),

including compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act, apart

from continuing family pension. The Respondent herein sought to explain

the utilisation of the said amounts by contending that the money was

preserved for the marriage of his sister and was eventually exhausted in the

year 2012, both before the learned Tribunal as well as this Court.

22. The aforesaid explanation advanced by the Respondent itself clearly

demonstrates that the amounts received by the family were preserved and

subsequently utilised in 2012 towards the marriage expenses of his sister.

Such a circumstance unequivocally indicates that the family was financially

stable enough to retain and manage the said funds over a considerable period

of time and was not facing the kind of immediate financial destitution or

survival crisis which largely forms the basis for compassionate appointment

under the governing Scheme.

23. Now, this Court is also well aware of the fact that receipt of terminal

benefits by itself cannot automatically disentitle a claimant from

consideration for compassionate appointment; nonetheless, financial

hardship must necessarily be assessed holistically, keeping in view the size

of the family, liabilities, earning members, educational responsibilities, and

overall economic sustainability.

24. On the aspect of holistic assessment of financial hardship, it stands

unequivocally admitted by the Respondent in his cross-examination before

the learned Tribunal that he had been employed with certain organisations

W.P.(C) 3034/2014 Page 15 of 23

and had undertaken gainful employment prior to seeking compassionate

appointment.

25. It is important to mention herein that the aforesaid admission is

quintessential to the assessment of the existence of any continuing or

immediate financial crisis warranting the invocation of the compassionate

appointment scheme. The Respondent’s own testimony materially weakens

the plea of persistent indigence and clearly demonstrates that the family had

not remained entirely without means of sustenance during the intervening

period preceding the application for compassionate appointment.

26. Further, in his cross-examination, the Respondent initially admitted

that his brother was contributing towards the household expenses. It was

only subsequently that a stand was taken that the brother had started residing

separately. The said shifting position further demonstrates that the family

was not entirely without financial support during the relevant period

immediately following the demise of the employee. In any event, subsequent

changes in family arrangements or future financial liabilities arising at a

later stage cannot furnish an independent ground for claiming compassionate

appointment.

27. It is also pertinent to note that the deceased employee was survived

not only by the Respondent, who was admittedly a minor at the relevant

time, but also by his mother and an elder brother who was otherwise eligible

to seek compassionate appointment. Significantly, neither the mother nor the

elder brother sought compassionate appointment immediately after the

demise of the employee. The absence of any such request during the period

immediately following the death of the employee materially sabotages the

W.P.(C) 3034/2014 Page 16 of 23

plea of acute financial distress necessitating urgent intervention by way of

compassionate appointment.

28. Not to mention that, at the time the claim for compassionate

appointment came to be raised, the Respondent’s mother was continuing to

receive family pension and his brother was admittedly contributing towards

the household expenses. These circumstances clearly indicate that the family

was not entirely without financial support during the relevant period and

substantially dilute the assertion of immediate financial destitution

contemplated under the Scheme.

29. The Respondent, in turn, was required to establish, by cogent

material, not merely the existence of financial hardship at the time of the

death of the employee, but also the bona fide and continuing circumstances

necessitating compassionate appointment at the stage when the claim was

actually raised. In the absence of any substantive explanation demonstrating

persistence of such financial distress over the intervening years, the very

basis for invoking the compassionate appointment scheme stands seriously

undermined.

30. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered

view that the family had not faced the immediate financial crisis and

destitution arising upon the death of the employee, which constitutes the

primary and determinative consideration for the grant of compassionate

appointment. Once the immediate economic hardship stands sufficiently

mitigated and the family is able to sustain itself, as is evident in the present

case, the very object and underlying rationale of compassionate appointment

no longer survived in the present case.

W.P.(C) 3034/2014 Page 17 of 23

31. The aforesaid circumstances leave little room for doubt that the family

of the Respondent remained financially secure and adequately sustained

even after the demise of the employee, thereby fundamentally eroding the

plea of acute financial destitution warranting compassionate appointment.

The material on record clearly indicates that the family possessed sufficient

financial resources and means of subsistence during the period following the

death of the employee.

32. However, the impugned Award, insofar as it records the existence of

financial hardship, is conspicuously bereft of any reasoned consideration of

the financial parameters prescribed under the Scheme. Further, the learned

Tribunal did not objectively examine whether the family nevertheless

continued to remain in such a state of financial destitution as would justify

compassionate appointment under the Scheme.

33. The learned Tribunal, in the aforesaid regard, failed to properly

examine the cumulative financial benefits received by the family, the

existence of a continuing family pension, the admitted gainful employment

undertaken by the Respondent, the substantial delay in raising the claim,

and, most importantly, whether any immediate financial crisis continued to

subsist at the relevant stage so as to justify compassionate appointment.

34. This, in the considered opinion of this Court, was wholly

impermissible. The aforesaid considerations constituted foundational and

indispensable factors for determining the Respondent’s eligibility under the

Scheme and necessarily required detailed and reasoned examination before

any direction for compassionate appointment could have been issued. The

failure of the learned Tribunal to undertake such an analysis renders the

findings recorded in the impugned Award patently unsustainable in law.

W.P.(C) 3034/2014 Page 18 of 23

35. Moreover, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal wholly failed to

undertake any meaningful assessment of the financial condition of the

family of the deceased employee, despite the same constituting the

foundational requirement under Clauses 5(a) and 16(c) of the Scheme.

36. Furthermore, the impugned Award also does not adequately consider

the admitted position that the Respondent had been engaged in intermittent

employment.

37. This Court is therefore of the considered view that the learned

Tribunal failed to record any cogent finding demonstrating satisfaction of

the requirement of indigence and immediate financial hardship as

contemplated under the Scheme, and consequently failed to correctly apply

the settled principles governing compassionate appointment, having

proceeded substantially on equitable and sympathetic considerations.

AVAILABILITY OF VACANCIES AND ELIGIBILITY UNDER THE

SCHEME

38. Moving to the aspect of availability of vacancies and the eligibility of

the Respondent, Clauses 7(a) and 7(b) of the governing Scheme

unequivocally stipulate that compassionate appointment can be granted only

against available regular vacancies within the prescribed 5% quota in Group

‘C’ and Group ‘D’ posts. In this regard, the Petitioner specifically pleaded

that no recruitment in Group ‘C’ or Group ‘D’ posts was being undertaken

during the relevant period and that no vacancies were available. It is also

undisputed that the Respondent possessed only a matriculation qualification

and was therefore ineligible for appointment to a Group ‘C’ post.

39. In such circumstances, this Court finds that no vacancy in a Group

‘D’ post existed against which the Respondent could have been considered

W.P.(C) 3034/2014 Page 19 of 23

under the Scheme. Consequently, in the absence of any available vacancy

within the prescribed quota, no enforceable right to compassionate

appointment could have accrued in favour of the Respondent.

40. The learned Tribunal clearly erred in proceeding on the assumption

that the mere existence of a compassionate appointment scheme and a 5%

quota created a corresponding entitlement in favour of the Respondent. Such

an approach is fundamentally contrary to the Scheme and settled law. The

existence of a quota merely prescribes the outer limit within which

appointments may be considered; it does not dispense with the mandatory

requirements of financial hardship, eligibility, availability of vacancy, and

compliance with the prescribed timeline, nor does it create an indefeasible

right in favour of every claimant. Public employment can only be granted in

accordance with the governing rules and against sanctioned vacancies.

41. Further, the contention of the Respondent regarding compassionate

appointments allegedly granted to two other persons was specifically

rebutted by the Petitioner in the Rejoinder filed before this Court, and no

material was thereafter placed on record by the Respondent to substantiate

the said assertion. In any event, the said contention is wholly

inconsequential, as every claim for compassionate appointment must be

independently examined strictly in accordance with the governing Scheme

and the facts of the individual case.

42. Accordingly, this Court finds merit in the contention advanced on

behalf of the Petitioner that compassionate appointment under the Scheme

could only be granted against available regular vacancies within the

prescribed quota, which admittedly did not exist in the present case.

W.P.(C) 3034/2014 Page 20 of 23

ON THE POINT OF DELAY

43. Equally significant in the present matter is the aspect of delay. The

deceased employee expired on 26th August, 2003, whereas the Respondent

admittedly applied for compassionate appointment only on 10th February,

2010, nearly six and a half years thereafter. Clause 16(j) of the Scheme

expressly prescribes a maximum period of two years for seeking

compassionate appointment.

44. The explanation advanced by the Respondent is that he attained

majority only in the year 2005 and thereafter pursued his claim through

representations and union intervention. However, even assuming the said

explanation to be correct, the first admittedly documented application arose

only in the year 2010 after an unexplained delay of nearly five years. No

contemporaneous documentary material demonstrating a continuous pursuit

of the claim from 2005 onwards was produced either before the learned

Tribunal or before this Court. Significantly, the Respondent admittedly did

not approach the Petitioner immediately upon attaining majority, and the

claim came to be raised nearly five years thereafter.

45. The Respondent was correspondingly expected to demonstrate bona

fide diligence in pursuing the claim for compassionate appointment,

particularly since such an appointment is founded upon the existence of an

immediate and pressing financial crisis. In matters concerning

compassionate appointment, the conduct of the claimant and the

promptitude with which the claim is pursued are crucial factors in assessing

the genuineness of the alleged penury.

W.P.(C) 3034/2014 Page 21 of 23

46. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K. (supra), wherein it was

observed and held as under:-

“25. [……] One of the foremost factors for appointment on

compassionate ground is that the same should be offered at the

earliest. Unless appointment is made soon after the need to

mitigate hardship arises, tiding over the immediate financial

crisis owing to (i) sudden premature and untimely death of the

deceased employee or (ii) medical incapacitation resulting in the

employee’s unfitness to continue in service, - for which

benevolence is shown by offering an appointment - may not exist

and thereby the very object of such appointment could stand

frustrated.”

47. The significance of delay in matters concerning compassionate

appointment, therefore, cannot be understated, since the very basis of such

appointment is the existence of immediate financial hardship requiring

urgent ameliorative intervention. Once the family survives for several years

after the demise of the employee, the element of immediacy, which

constitutes the core rationale of compassionate appointment, substantially

diminishes.

48. Reference may also be made to “Beg Raj Singh vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh (2003) 1 SCC 726 ”, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed

that relief may be denied where subsequent events or lapse of time render

the relief redundant or incapable of being granted.

49. In spite of the aforesaid settled position, the learned Tribunal

proceeded on the assumption that the Respondent had continuously pursued

his claim even prior to 2010, despite there being no documentary evidence

whatsoever in support thereof. The finding returned by the learned Tribunal

W.P.(C) 3034/2014 Page 22 of 23

on this aspect is therefore directly contrary to the admitted testimony of the

Respondent himself and contrary to the material available on record.

50. This Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal

failed to appreciate not only the mandatory stipulation contained in Clause

16(j) of the Scheme, but also the settled legal principles governing delayed

claims for compassionate appointment.

51. Though delay, by itself, may not invariably constitute the sole ground

for rejection where continuing financial hardship is otherwise established,

the present case cannot be viewed as one of mere delay simpliciter. The

prolonged lapse of time is accompanied by several other material

circumstances, namely, the substantial terminal and statutory benefits

received by the family, the continued receipt of family pension, the admitted

gainful employment undertaken by the Respondent prior to making the

application, and the fact that no eligible family member sought

compassionate appointment immediately after the death of the employee.

CONCLUSION

52. Taken cumulatively, the aforesaid circumstances unequivocally

negate the existence of the immediate financial destitution contemplated

under the Scheme and fully justify the refusal of compassionate appointment

in the facts of the present case.

53. While this Court is not unmindful of the hardship faced by the

Respondent and his family consequent upon the demise of the employee,

considerations of sympathy cannot override the constitutional mandate

governing public employment or the express stipulations contained in the

applicable Scheme. Compassionate appointment is not intended to operate

W.P.(C) 3034/2014 Page 23 of 23

as a source of financial advancement or long-term economic rehabilitation

for the family of a deceased employee. Its object is strictly confined to

providing immediate succour to a family suddenly rendered vulnerable by

the untimely demise of its breadwinner, and it cannot be permitted to assume

the character of an alternate mode of public employment.

54. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned Award suffers

from patent illegality, non-application of mind, and findings directly

contrary to the material available on record. The learned Tribunal failed

to consider the mandatory stipulations contained in Clauses 5(a), 7(a), 7(b),

16(c), and 16(j) of the Scheme, and further overlooked the binding

principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court governing

compassionate appointment. The findings returned with respect to financial

hardship, availability of vacancies, and timely pursuit of the claim are

unsupported by cogent evidence and are therefore wholly unsustainable in

law.

55. The impugned Award consequently warrants interference under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the impugned Award

dated 22

nd

March, 2014, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial

Tribunal, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in I.D. No. 14/11 is hereby quashed

and set aside.

56. The present Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. Pending

application(s) if any, stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

SHAIL JAIN

JUDGE

MAY 18, 2026/MM