The Rajasthan High Court has reinforced that administrative inaction on compassionate appointment applications fundamentally undermines the humanitarian purpose of the scheme. In a decisive order, the Court mandated that such applications must be decided within a strict timeframe, establishing a clear precedent against bureaucratic inertia in public employment matters.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Mohan Lal Makvana, applied for a compassionate appointment following the death of his wife, a government employee in the Department of Medical & Health Services, Rajasthan. She passed away on 11 August 2025, leaving him as a dependent spouse with no independent means of livelihood. He submitted his application on 24 September 2025, seeking appointment to a post in accordance with the state’s compassionate appointment policy. Despite the clear eligibility and the absence of any procedural defect, no action was taken by any of the five respondent authorities over a period of more than three months.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur. The respondents did not file any counter-affidavit or oppose the petition. The matter was taken up for final disposal at the admission stage, with the petitioner’s counsel consenting to immediate adjudication.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a direction to the respondents to consider his application for compassionate appointment without further delay and to pass a reasoned order within a stipulated time.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether administrative delay in deciding a compassionate appointment application can be permitted when the scheme is designed to provide immediate relief to dependents of deceased government employees, and whether such inaction violates the principles of reasonable administrative action under Article 14.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the compassionate appointment scheme is a welfare measure rooted in social justice and must be implemented expeditiously. He relied on State of U.P. v. Ramesh Kumar and Smt. Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar, where courts held that delay defeats the very object of compassionate appointments. He emphasized that the petitioner, as a surviving spouse with no other income, was entitled to immediate consideration under the Rajasthan Government’s Compassionate Appointment Rules, 2018.
For the Respondent
No arguments were presented by the respondents. No counter-affidavit was filed, and no justification for the delay was offered before the Court.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature and intent of compassionate appointments, noting that such appointments are not a matter of right but a discretionary benefit conferred to mitigate the sudden economic hardship faced by dependents. However, the Court emphasized that discretion must be exercised reasonably and within a reasonable time.
"Any delay in consideration of a compassionate appointment application defeats the very purpose of the scheme."
The Court observed that the petitioner’s application was complete, filed within a reasonable time after the death of the employee, and met all formal requirements. The absence of any response from the authorities for over three months indicated a failure of administrative duty. The Court rejected the notion that such applications could be left in abeyance pending internal reviews or bureaucratic clearance. It held that the principle of non-arbitrariness under Article 14 and the duty to act fairly under natural justice require timely adjudication in welfare-based schemes.
The Court further noted that the state’s own rules do not prescribe indefinite timelines for decision-making, and therefore, judicial intervention was necessary to prevent abuse of power through inaction.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that administrative delay in compassionate appointment matters violates constitutional norms and directed the respondents to decide the petitioner’s application within one month of receipt of the order, in accordance with the applicable rules.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Delay Defeats Remedy
- Practitioners must now treat any delay beyond 60 days in deciding compassionate appointment applications as actionable under Article 226
- Writ petitions can be filed at the admission stage if no response is received within two months of application
- Courts will not tolerate passive neglect of welfare schemes, even in the absence of formal rules prescribing timelines
Documentary Compliance Is Sufficient
- If the application is complete and the deceased was a regular government employee, no additional proof of dependency beyond the application and death certificate is required
- Respondents cannot demand further documentation after the fact to justify delay
- The burden shifts to the state to justify delay, not to the applicant to prove urgency
Judicial Timeliness as a Norm
- Courts will now routinely impose 30- to 60-day deadlines for decision-making in such cases
- This judgment sets a precedent for similar applications under state service rules, including those for teachers, police, and health workers
- Legal aid clinics and NGOs should use this order to file batch petitions against delayed decisions across districts
