The Supreme Court has reiterated that a benefit of compassionate appointment cannot be denied to a beneficiary merely on account of delay or inaction by the employer in processing an application.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M Pancholi heard the case where a son's application seeking a benefit of a compassionate appointment was rejected by the employer, Western Coalfields Limited, finding him to be crossing a permissible age limit at the time of consideration of his application.

According the Appellant no.2-son of the deceased, he had preferred an application for seeking a compassionate appointment on 14.06.2021, when he was below 35 years of age, and a delay/inaction on the part of the Respondent in processing his application for about 19 months before it was rejected on 03.02.2023, would not be a ground to reject his application on account of the Appellant no.2 age exceeding the permissible age limit at the time of consideration of the application.

The Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench order had dismissed the Appellant no. 2 plea, affirming the rejection, holding that age had to be reckoned on the date on which the claim of Appellant No. 2 was considered, on which date Appellant No. 2 had already crossed the age of 35 years prescribed under Clause 9.3.4 of the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA).

Aggrieved, the son moved to the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the impugned order, the judgment authored by Justice Pancholi placed reliance on Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa & Ors (2024), where it was held that the employer/authorities cannot be allowed to benefit from their own delay and that applications for compassionate appointment ought to be decided expeditiously, preferably within six months.

“…we are of the view that appellant No. 2 cannot be denied compassionate appointment merely because the respondent-authorities took an unduly long time to process and decide his claim…Even if the date of receipt of the formal application, i.e. 14.06.2021, is taken as the relevant date, the respondent-authorities rejected the claim only on 03.02.2023, which is after an inordinate delay of about 19 months. The respondent-authorities cannot be permitted to defeat the claim of an otherwise eligible dependent by taking advantage of their own delay in processing the application.”, the Court observed.

“…we are of the considered opinion that the respondent-authorities were not justified in rejecting the claim of appellant No. 2 on the ground that he had crossed the age limit by the time the application was considered. The High Court also erred in affirming that decision. The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.”, the Court added.

The appeal was allowed, directing the respondent to “reconsider the claim of appellant No. 2 for compassionate appointment by treating him as eligible in age and by examining only the remaining conditions under the applicable scheme. Such exercise shall be completed within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If appellant No. 2 is otherwise found eligible, appointment shall be offered within 4 weeks thereafter.”

“…we clarify that this judgment is rendered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.”, the Court said.

Cause Title: RASPELLI BHAGYA KISHAIYA & ORS. VERSUS GENERAL MANAGER WESTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 811

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kumar Abhishek, Adv. Ms. Sadhana Madhavan, Adv. Ms. Kavana Rao, Adv. Ms. G. Sushmitha, Adv. Mr. Sravan Kumar Karanam, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, AOR Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Adv. Mrs. Vinay Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Sarika Suman, Adv. Mr. Aayush Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Vinay Jaiswal, Adv.

Also Read: Employer Can't Defeat Compassionate Appointment Claim By Delaying Processing: Supreme Court