Addressing whether an employer can deny a compassionate appointment claim on account of an age bar resulting from administrative delay, the Supreme Court of India, in a bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, held that an otherwise eligible dependent cannot be rendered ineligible merely because the processing of formalities by the employer took time. The apex court set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) and directed Western Coalfields Limited to reconsider the candidate’s claim by treating him as age-eligible.
Factual Background
The case arose following the death of Late Ruspelli Kistaiya, who worked as a Dozer Operator with Western Coalfields Limited for nearly 36 years before dying in harness on December 17, 2020. At the time of his father’s death, appellant No. 2 was 34 years, 10 months, and 12 days old.
On December 31, 2020, Western Coalfields Limited issued a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) detailing the procedure for onboarding dependents on compassionate grounds. On January 3, 2021, appellant No. 1 (the deceased employee’s widow) approached the authorities regarding post-death service benefits. The following day, January 4, 2021, respondent No. 4 issued a communication directing appellant No. 2 to undergo police verification. Appellant No. 3, the younger son, furnished a No-Objection Certificate in favor of appellant No. 2.
Appellant No. 2 attained 35 years of age on February 5, 2021. Police verification and document verification were completed on February 11, 2021, and February 25, 2021, respectively. Following the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, appellant No. 2 submitted the prescribed pro forma application on May 28, 2021, which was formally acknowledged by the authorities on June 14, 2021.
On February 3, 2023, the authorities rejected the claim on the ground that appellant No. 2 had crossed the maximum age limit of 35 years prescribed under Clause 9.3.4 of the National Coal Wage Agreement – VI (NCWA). This rejection was communicated on May 20, 2023. The appellants challenged this rejection before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, in Writ Petition No. 2364 of 2024. On November 26, 2025, the High Court dismissed the petition, holding that age had to be reckoned as on the date of consideration of the application.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments:
Learned Senior Counsel Ms. Anitha Shenoy, appearing for the appellants, submitted that Clause 9.3.4 of the NCWA does not specify a cut-off date for reckoning age. Therefore, in the absence of an express stipulation, age must be reckoned from the date of the employee’s death or when the compassionate appointment process was initiated (January 4, 2021, when police verification was ordered). On both dates, appellant No. 2 was under 35 years of age.
She argued that the employer took over two years to reject the claim and could not benefit from its own administrative delay or the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. She relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa & Ors., Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries, and Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K.
Respondents’ Arguments:
Learned Counsel Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, appearing for the respondent-authorities, argued that compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a concession governed strictly by the NCWA. He contended that the letter directing police verification was merely a preliminary administrative step, and the claim became ripe for consideration only upon submission of the complete application on June 14, 2021. Since appellant No. 2 was over 35 years old on that date, the authorities had no power to relax the eligibility criteria under the NCWA.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court noted that compassionate appointment, while not an enforceable right, is a welfare measure intended to provide immediate financial support to a deceased employee’s family and must be interpreted in a fair and reasonable manner.
The court rejected the respondents’ argument that the January 4, 2021 police verification letter was routine, noting that under the employer’s own SOP, police verification takes place as part of processing an initiated claim. The court observed that the conduct of the authorities established that the process had already begun on January 4, 2021, when appellant No. 2 was within the age limit.
The court further emphasized that even taking June 14, 2021 as the receipt date, the authorities took nearly 19 months to reject the claim on February 3, 2023, and held that an employer cannot take advantage of its own delay to defeat a claim.
Highlighting the governing principles on administrative delay in compassionate appointments, the Supreme Court cited its decision in Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa & Ors., quoting:
“Thus, from the aforesaid, it can be seen that there was no fault and/or delay and/or negligence on the part of the appellant at all. He was fulfilling all the conditions for appointment on compassionate grounds under the 1990 Rules. For no reason, his application was kept pending and/or no order was passed on one ground or the other. Therefore, when there was no fault and/or delay on the part of the appellant and all throughout there was a delay on the part of the department/authorities, the appellant should not be made to suffer. Not appointing the appellant under the 1990 Rules would be giving a premium to the delay and/or inaction on the part of the department/authorities. There was an absolute callousness on the part of the department/authorities. The facts are conspicuous and manifest the grave delay in entertaining the application submitted by the appellant in seeking employment which is indisputably attributable to the department/authorities. In fact, the appellant has been deprived of seeking compassionate appointment, which he was otherwise entitled to under the 1990 Rules. The appellant has become a victim of the delay and/or inaction on the part of the department/authorities which may be deliberate or for reasons best known to the authorities concerned. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, keeping the larger question open and aside, as observed hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the appellant herein shall not be denied appointment under the 1990 Rules.”
The court also cited key observations from Malaya Nanda Sethy regarding the timely disposal of such applications:
“Before parting with the present order, we are constrained to observe that considering the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds i.e. a family of a deceased employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the untimely death of the employee while in service and the basis or policy is immediacy in rendering of financial assistance to the family of the deceased consequent upon his untimely death, the authorities must consider and decide such applications for appointment on compassionate grounds as per the policy prevalent, at the earliest, but not beyond a period of six months from the date of submission of such completed applications.”
“We are constrained to direct as above as we have found that in several cases, applications for appointment on compassionate grounds are not attended in time and are kept pending for years together. As a result, the applicants in several cases have to approach the High Courts concerned seeking a writ of mandamus for the consideration of their applications. Even after such a direction is issued, frivolous or vexatious reasons are given for rejecting the applications. Once again, the applicants have to challenge the order of rejection before the High Court which leads to pendency of litigation and passage of time, leaving the family of the employee who died in harness in the lurch and in financial difficulty. Further, for reasons best known to the authorities and on irrelevant considerations, applications made for compassionate appointment are rejected. After several years or are not considered at all as in the instant case.”
“If the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds as envisaged under the relevant policies or the rules have to be achieved then it is just and necessary that such applications are considered well in time and not in a tardy way. We have come across cases where for nearly two decades the controversy regarding the application made for compassionate appointment is not resolved. This consequently leads to the frustration of the very policy of granting compassionate appointment on the death of the employee while in service. We have, therefore, directed that such applications must be considered at an earliest point of time. The consideration must be fair, reasonable and based on relevant consideration. The application cannot be rejected on the basis of frivolous and for reasons extraneous to the facts of the case. Then and then only the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds can be achieved.”
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in holding that there was no delay and in accepting that the claim arose only upon submission of the formal application form on June 14, 2021.
Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s judgment dated November 26, 2025.
The court directed Western Coalfields Limited to reconsider the claim of appellant No. 2 for compassionate appointment by treating him as eligible in age and examining only the remaining conditions under the scheme. The court directed that this exercise be completed within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, and if found eligible, an offer of appointment be made within 4 weeks thereafter.
Case Details:
Case Title: Raspelli Bhagya Kishaiya & Ors. v. General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7244 of 2026)
Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
Date: August 12, 2026
