Supreme Court says employer delay cannot bar compassionate appointment on age

A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi set aside a rejection, holding an applicant eligible in age despite the employer’s 19-month delay in deciding his claim.

The Supreme Court has held that an otherwise eligible dependent cannot be denied compassionate appointment on the ground that he crossed the prescribed age limit while the employer sat on his claim. Deciding an appeal against a Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, judgment, a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi found that the process for compassionate appointment with Western Coalfields Limited had begun on 4 January 2021, when the appellant was still below 35, and that the authorities took about 19 months to reject the claim. The Court set aside the rejection and directed reconsideration of the claim by treating the applicant as eligible in age. The judgment, authored by Justice Pancholi, held that authorities cannot defeat an eligible dependent’s claim by taking advantage of their own delay.

How the dispute reached the Court

Late Ruspelli Kistaiya served as a Dozer Operator with Western Coalfields Limited for nearly 36 years and died in harness on 17 December 2020. On that date his son, appellant No. 2, was aged 34 years, 10 months and 12 days, his date of birth being 5 February 1986.

The widow approached the authorities on 3 January 2021 regarding post-death service benefits. On 4 January 2021, respondent No. 4 issued a communication directing the son to undergo police verification for compassionate appointment. The younger son furnished a No-Objection Certificate in his brother’s favour.

The son completed 35 years on 5 February 2021. Police verification and document verification were completed on 11 February and 25 February 2021. He submitted the prescribed pro forma application on 28 May 2021, which the authorities acknowledged on 14 June 2021. On 3 February 2023, the claim was rejected on the ground that he had crossed the age of 35 years prescribed under Clause 9.3.4 of the National Coal Wage Agreement-VI.

The widow filed Writ Petition No. 2364 of 2024, which the High Court dismissed on 26 November 2025, holding that age had to be reckoned on the date the claim was considered, by when the son was already over 35.

What the Court decided on the relevant date

The issue was whether, in the absence of any express cut-off date in Clause 9.3.4, age eligibility should be reckoned from the date the application was considered or from the date the right accrued and the process was initiated.

The Court rejected the employer’s argument that the 4 January 2021 communication was a routine administrative step unconnected with initiation. The employer’s own Standard Operating Procedure provided that antecedent and police verification shall be obtained before processing a claim. Police verification, the Court reasoned, could not take place unless a claim had already been initiated. Their own conduct showed the process had begun on 4 January 2021.

The Court also declined to treat 14 June 2021, the date of the completed application, as decisive. A dependent eligible on the date of death who applied within a reasonable period of six months could not be rendered ineligible merely because procedural formalities took time.

Why delay and COVID mattered

The Court noted that the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted normal administrative functioning from March to end June 2021, the period in which the pro forma application was submitted and acknowledged. Delay during that window could not fairly be attributed to the appellant.

Even assuming 14 June 2021 as the relevant date, the claim was rejected only on 3 February 2023, after an inordinate delay of about 19 months. The Court held the High Court’s finding that the claim was considered within four to five months was contrary to the record.

The Bench relied on Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa, (2024) 15 SCC 766, where the Court held that an otherwise eligible applicant cannot suffer for delay attributable to the employer and directed that such applications be decided expeditiously, preferably within six months of a completed application. The authorities, the Court held, cannot defeat an eligible dependent’s claim by taking advantage of their own delay.

Order

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court judgment dated 26 November 2025. It directed the authorities to reconsider the claim by treating appellant No. 2 as eligible in age and examining only the remaining conditions under the applicable scheme, to be completed within eight weeks of receipt of the judgment. If otherwise found eligible, appointment shall be offered within four weeks thereafter.

The Bench clarified that the judgment was rendered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The appeal stood disposed of along with pending applications.