28 Years On, Rajasthan High Court Asks Authority To Consider Compassionate Appointment Of Man Who Lost Father At Age Of Two

The Rajasthan High Court has asked the State Electricity Transmission Corporation to consider the plea for compassionate appointment of a man, who lost his serving father back in the year 1997. The man was only 2 years old at the time.

Ordinarily, compassionate appointment is an "immediate relief" to the family of a deceased government servant, mitigating the financial distress caused by the loss of the breadwinner.

However, in this case, Court directed that the relief be considered despite lapse of 28 years, citing the ongoing financial distress of the Petitioner.

Justice Arun Monga highlighted Rule 10(3) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (“Rules”) that permits the State to relax the time limit for such applications in exceptional cases where strict adherence shall cause financial hardship to the family.

"In this case, ever since the father's death in 1997, the family has relied solely on a meager family pension, insufficient to meet their basic needs. There is thus ongoing penury and calamity warranting its alleviation. The petitioner's mother is illiterate and currently suffers from both physical and mental ailments, rendering her unable to support the family. The petitioner, as the only surviving male member after the death of his elder brother...is now the sole potential breadwinner. Denying compassionate appointment would perpetuate the family's financial hardship, defeating the benevolent intent of the scheme," it said.

Significant to note that Petitioner's brother, who was only 7 years old at the time, had applied for compassionate appointment after attaining majority but, he also passed away pending consideration of his application, leading the Petitioner to finally approach the authority.

Nonetheless, Petitioner's application to substitute his brother for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that the brother had made the application with three and half years delay after attaining majority back in 2015.

It was the case of the State that as per the Rules the mother should have applied for the appointment within 90 days from the date of death of the father. In the present case, the application was not made on time, also, the information about the elder brother attaining majority was not given.

After hearing the contentions, the Court perused Rule 10 of the Rules and referred to the Rajasthan High Court case of Smt. Maya L. Dinghrani Vs. U.C.O. Bank in which it was held that,

“The members of the deceased are not normally aware of their any right under the scheme to apply for the compassionate appointment until and unless they are so informed and, therefore, it is, therefore advisable that while granting the service benefits to the dependents, it shall be the duty of the employer in situation to inform…but in the in the absence of such information having passing to such dependents, time bound clause viz., a viz dependents…”

While expressing agreement with this ruling, it was highlighted that the State had not informed the mother or her sons about the specific time limits. Considering mother's illiteracy and the family's tribal background, the failure to provide such information shifted the burden in favour of condonation of delay, Court said.

The Court also ruled that the petitioner's application was rejected solely on the ground of delay on part of his mother or elder brother, without evaluating his application afresh despite his misfortune and further family calamity. It was opined that this approach overlooked petitioner's independent eligibility as the next surviving dependent after his brother's death.

Accordingly the delay was condoned, and the matter was remitted to the concerned State Department for consideration of petitioner's application.

Title: Bharat Kumar v Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 138

Click Here To Read/Download Order