The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition seeking a government job on compassionate grounds, filed fifteen years after the death of the petitioner’s father—an assistant headmaster in a government-aided school. The ruling reiterates long-established legal principles governing compassionate appointments, particularly the requirement that such claims must be made within a reasonable time and cannot be deferred indefinitely until the dependent child attains adulthood.

The case involved petitioner Sayed Shahinoor Zaman, whose father, a teacher at a Murshidabad-based government-aided school, died in service in September 2010. At the time, Zaman was only eight years old. His counsel informed the court that upon reaching adulthood, Zaman submitted an application in June 2025 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. However, Justice Amrita Sinha of the Calcutta High Court held that such delayed claims go against the very objective of compassionate appointment schemes and cannot be entertained after a lapse of fifteen years.

Background of the Case

According to submissions made before the court, Zaman’s father had served the school for sixteen years and had recently been promoted to the position of assistant headmaster when he passed away. Following his death, Zaman’s mother allegedly attempted to seek a compassionate appointment but was unable to secure a job. The petitioner’s lawyer argued that the family had indeed submitted a representation shortly after the death, though no documentation could be produced to prove that such an application was ever filed or considered by the District Inspector of Schools, Murshidabad.

Years later, after Zaman reached adulthood, he claimed to have applied to the school authorities anew for a compassionate appointment. The matter was purportedly pending before the district inspector’s office, prompting Zaman to seek directions from the High Court to compel the authorities to consider his application.

Court’s Observations on Delay

The High Court examined the legal framework governing compassionate appointments—a scheme intended as an exception to standard recruitment processes and designed solely to alleviate the immediate financial distress faced by a family after the loss of a breadwinner. Justice Sinha emphasized that compassionate appointments are not vested rights that can be exercised after long intervals or at the convenience of the dependent.

The court underscored a critical principle: a compassionate appointment must relate to the circumstances prevailing at the time of the employee’s death, not many years afterward. The judge stated plainly, “There is no scope of reservation of vacancies to be filled up by the heir of a deceased upon attaining majority.” In other words, when a minor dependent reaches adulthood years later, the law does not permit holding or creating posts retroactively for their benefit.

The court noted that Zaman was not eligible to make the application at the time of his father’s death due to being a minor, and that the law does not provide for a vacancy to be reserved until the dependent becomes eligible. By the time Zaman submitted his application in 2025, fifteen years had elapsed—far beyond what the court considered reasonable or consistent with the purpose of the compassionate appointment scheme.

Purpose of Compassionate Appointment

In its judgment, the High Court reiterated a principle repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court of India: compassionate appointments are not intended to function as a parallel source of employment but as a means to support families in crisis. Such appointments are granted only to prevent families from falling into destitution immediately after the death of the primary wage earner.

Justice Sinha emphasized that the passage of fifteen years undermines the very urgency the scheme is intended to address. If the family managed to survive for such an extended period, the court reasoned, there is no longer a basis for claiming that the family requires immediate economic support via the compassionate appointment mechanism.

Lack of Supporting Documentation

The court also placed weight on the petitioner’s inability to produce evidence of any application made by his mother in 2010 or in the years that followed. Without such records, the court found no justification to intervene or direct authorities to process the pending application.

Additionally, the absence of contemporaneous documentation prevented the petitioner from substantiating claims that the authorities had failed to act on a timely application. The court held that this further weakened the argument in support of the plea.

Court’s Final Decision

Justice Sinha concluded that directing the District Inspector of Schools to consider Zaman’s application after such an extraordinary delay would contradict established legal precedent and the purpose of compassionate appointments. Calling the request “highly belated,” the court stated unequivocally that there was “no scope to show compassion to the heir of a deceased at such a belated stage.” The petition was accordingly dismissed.

Broader Implications of the Ruling

The decision reinforces a consistent line of judicial reasoning across Indian courts. While the compassionate appointment system exists to protect families from sudden financial catastrophe, courts have repeatedly clarified that it cannot serve as a guaranteed employment channel, nor can appointments be deferred for years until minors become adults.

Courts have held that allowing such long delays would defeat the objective of the scheme, distort merit-based recruitment processes, and open the door to misuse. The Calcutta High Court’s ruling falls squarely within this established jurisprudence, signaling continued judicial reluctance to entertain delayed claims.

For families of deceased employees, the judgment serves as a reminder that applications for compassionate appointment must be made promptly and supported with proper documentation. For administrative bodies, it provides judicial backing for refusing belated or incomplete claims.

---