Facts
The deceased employee of Western Coalfields Ltd. died in harness on 17 December 2020. His son, appellant No.2, was then aged 34 years, 10 months and 12 days, below the 35-year limit prescribed by Clause 9.3.4 NCWA. On 4 January 2021, the authorities directed him to undergo police verification. He completed police and document verification in February 2021 and submitted the prescribed application on 28 May 2021.
The authorities ultimately rejected the claim on 3 February 2023 because he had crossed 35 years by then. The High Court upheld the rejection, treating the date of consideration as the relevant date.
Issues Framed
Whether, in the absence of an express cut-off date in Clause 9.3.4 NCWA, age eligibility for compassionate appointment is to be determined on the date of consideration of the application or with reference to the date on which the right accrued and the process was initiated. — Para 15.
Court’s Reasoning
(a) Object of compassionate appointment. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right, but it is a welfare measure intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the deceased employee's family. The scheme must therefore be interpreted fairly and reasonably so that its object is not defeated. — Para 16.
(b) Process had commenced before the appellant crossed 35. The authorities themselves directed police verification on 4 January 2021. Under their SOP, police and antecedent verification was part of processing a compassionate-employment claim. The Court therefore rejected the contention that the process commenced only upon submission of the formal application. — Para 19.
(c) Employer's delay cannot defeat eligibility. The appellant was below 35 when the employee died and when the process commenced. Even if 14 June 2021, the date of acknowledgment of the formal application, were treated as relevant, the authorities took about 19 months thereafter to reject the claim. Following Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa, the Court held that an otherwise eligible dependent cannot suffer because of delay attributable to the employer. — Paras 20–22.
(d) High Court's error. The High Court incorrectly treated 14 June 2021 as the commencement of the claim and further proceeded on the erroneous premise that the claim had been considered within four to five months. The record demonstrated an approximately 19-month delay in rejection. — Para 23.
Held
The appeal was allowed and the High Court judgment was set aside. The authorities were directed to reconsider appellant No.2's claim by treating him as age-eligible and examining only the remaining conditions under the applicable scheme. The exercise was to be completed within eight weeks, followed by appointment within four weeks if he was otherwise eligible. The Court confined its ruling to the peculiar facts of the case. — Paras 25–27.
Conclusion
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.
Relevant Para
22. Keeping in view the aforesaid decision rendered by this Court and examining the facts of the present case, 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. As noted hereinabove, the process for compassionate appointment had already commenced on 04.01.2021 when appellant No. 2 was admittedly within the prescribed age limit. 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.
Case Details
Citation: 2026 INSC 841
Decided on: 12 August 2026
Case Title: Raspelli Bhagya Kishaiva & Ors. v. General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Aravind Kumar J.; Vipul M. Pancholi J.