Allahabad High Court Dismisses Petition for Delayed Compassionate Appointment
Court Imposes Rs. 100,000 Cost on Bank for Delay in Representation Decision
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Ajay Bhanot, dismissed the writ petition filed by Prinsu Singh seeking a compassionate appointment following the death of his father, a former State Bank of India employee. The court held that compassionate appointments are not a vested right and must be pursued promptly to address immediate financial distress.
The judgment delivered on September 25, 2025, underscored that appointments on compassionate grounds are an exception to the public recruitment process, intended to provide immediate financial relief to families in distress due to the loss of a government employee. The court observed that the delay in filing the application or approaching the court creates a presumption that financial distress no longer exists, and claims must be diligently prosecuted.
Prinsu Singh's father was dismissed from service in 2006, but was reinstated with back wages following a 2015 labor court award, which is currently under challenge. After his father's death in December 2019, Singh applied for compassionate appointment in January 2020, and again in April 2025. The court noted that the initial application was timely, but the writ petition was filed after an inordinate delay, indicating that the family had managed to subsist, thereby nullifying the rationale for compassionate appointment.
The court cited precedents from the Supreme Court and other legal authorities emphasizing that compassionate appointments are intended to provide immediate succor and not a windfall, and delays in applications suggest the absence of financial distress. The court also highlighted that filing successive representations does not revive a stale claim.
While dismissing the petition, the court imposed a cost of Rs. 100,000 on the respondent bank for failing to decide the representation expeditiously, reflecting judicial disapproval of the bank's apathy in processing the application.
This judgment serves as a reminder that while compassionate appointments are an essential social welfare measure, they must adhere to constitutional principles and timelines to ensure equitable and timely assistance to those in genuine need.
Bottom Line:
Compassionate appointment is not a vested right and must be pursued promptly to address immediate financial distress; delay or laches in seeking such appointment can lead to dismissal of the claim.
Statutory provision(s): Articles 14, 16 of the Constitution of India, Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Prinsu Singh v. Union of India, (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2784335
