Son's Substitution for Compassionate Appointment Not Time-Barred Where Department Left Mother's Claim Undecided: Rajasthan High Court

The petitioner's father, a government servant, died in harness on 7 March 2021. On 15 May 2021 the petitioner's mother applied for compassionate appointment under the Rajasthan compassionate appointment Rules of 1996 (para 3). The application remained undecided. In view of her ill health, she asked through the proper channel on 26 November 2024 that her son, who had meanwhile attained majority, be considered instead. That request was rejected on the ground that his claim was hopelessly time-barred (para 3). The son's writ petition challenged a communication dated 2 July 2026 and sought fresh consideration (opening paragraph). The Court had earlier asked the respondents to disclose whether the mother's application had ever been decided (para 4).

At the hearing on 26 October 2026, the respondents confirmed, on instructions, that the mother's application had not been finally decided and was still pending before the authorities (para 5). On that footing the Court held that, since the respondents themselves had taken no final decision on her application under the Rules of 1996, her request to substitute her son in her place for consideration for compassionate appointment could not be rejected merely on the ground of delay and laches (para 6). Any delay in processing and deciding the application was attributable to the respondent Department (para 6). No rule had been brought to the Court's notice that disentitles an applicant from seeking substitution of another eligible family member in her place while an application for compassionate appointment is pending (para 6). The Rules of 1996 also do not provide for automatic rejection of an application for compassionate appointment (para 6). For these reasons the Court allowed the writ petition and required the authorities to process the substitution request in accordance with law (para 7).