Compassionate appointment claims must satisfy scheme-based income limits, and unexplained delay can also defeat writ relief.

Compassionate appointment under the Rules, 2009 was upheld as a discretionary exception to normal recruitment and had to be granted strictly within the governing scheme. The family income benchmark in Schedule V applied, and the deceased employee's family income exceeded the prescribed limit, so rejection of the claim was consistent with the statutory framework. The challenge was also vulnerable because it was filed after several years without a satisfactory explanation, and delayed invocation of writ jurisdiction was incompatible with relief intended to address immediate hardship. On both grounds, the administrative rejection was not interfered with.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment under the Rules, 2009 was valid in view of the family income criterion and the statutory scheme; (ii) whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected as belated and lacking a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

Issue (i): whether rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment under the Rules, 2009 was valid in view of the family income criterion and the statutory scheme.

Analysis: Compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal rule of recruitment and can be granted only in accordance with the governing scheme or rules. The relevant provisions of the Rules, 2009, including Schedule V, require the authority to assess financial hardship by reference to the prescribed income benchmark. The petitioner did not challenge the validity of the Rules, 2009. The income of the deceased employee's family, as computed by the District Inspector of Schools, exceeded the prescribed limit, and the rejection order was therefore consistent with the scheme. The earlier authorities relied upon by the petitioner were treated as not controlling in view of later Supreme Court decisions and the statutory framework applicable to compassionate appointment.

Conclusion: The rejection of compassionate appointment was held to be valid and was upheld against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected as belated and lacking a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

Analysis: The challenge was brought several years after the impugned rejection, and the petitioner failed to furnish a reasonable explanation for the prolonged inaction. Since compassionate appointment is intended to meet immediate hardship, delayed invocation of writ jurisdiction undermined the claim. The delay was treated as an additional ground rendering the petition unsustainable.

Conclusion: The writ petition was held to be barred by delay and was not maintainable on that ground as well.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere with the administrative rejection of compassionate appointment, held the claim inconsistent with the governing rules, and refused relief also on the ground of unexplained delay.

Ratio Decidendi: Compassionate appointment can be granted only within the confines of the applicable scheme or rules, and the financial condition of the family must satisfy the prescribed eligibility criteria; a delayed challenge without adequate explanation is liable to fail, especially where the relief is meant to address immediate hardship.

---