Raspelli Bhagya Kishaiya v. General Manager, WCL
“Employer Delay Cannot Defeat Compassionate Appointment: Dependent Who Was Within the Age Limit When the Process Began Cannot Be Rejected as Overage”
TL;DR
The Supreme Court set aside a Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) judgment that had upheld the rejection of a compassionate appointment claim because the dependent son had crossed the 35-year age limit under Clause 9.3.4 of the National Coal Wage Agreement-VI by the time his claim was considered. The employee, a Dozer Operator with Western Coalfields Limited, died in harness on 17.12.2020 when his son was 34 years, 10 months and 12 days old. The employer itself directed police verification on 04.01.2021, the son turned 35 on 05.02.2021, and the claim was rejected only on 03.02.2023. The Court held that the process had begun on 04.01.2021 while the son was within the age limit, that the employer could not take advantage of its own delay of about 19 months, and directed the claim to be reconsidered treating him as eligible in age, in the peculiar facts of the case.
The Bottom Line
A dependent who was eligible by age when the employee died and when the employer itself started the compassionate appointment process cannot be rejected as overage simply because the employer took a long time to decide. The Supreme Court directed Western Coalfields Limited to reconsider the claim treating the son as age-eligible, examining only the remaining conditions of the scheme, within 8 weeks, and to offer appointment within 4 weeks thereafter if he is otherwise eligible. The Court stressed that the ruling is confined to the peculiar facts of this case.
Case Timeline
The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict
Employee Dies in Harness
Late Ruspelli Kistaiya, a Dozer Operator with Western Coalfields Limited for nearly 36 years, died in harness. His son, appellant No. 2, was then 34 years, 10 months and 12 days old.
Employee Dies in Harness
Late Ruspelli Kistaiya, a Dozer Operator with Western Coalfields Limited for nearly 36 years, died in harness. His son, appellant No. 2, was then 34 years, 10 months and 12 days old.
SOP for Compassionate Appointment Issued
The company issued a Standard Operating Procedure / Circular providing the procedure for on-boarding dependents of ex-employees on compassionate grounds.
SOP for Compassionate Appointment Issued
The company issued a Standard Operating Procedure / Circular providing the procedure for on-boarding dependents of ex-employees on compassionate grounds.
Widow Approaches Authorities
The widow approached the authorities regarding dues and service benefits after her husband's death. Appellant No. 2 was then 34 years, 10 months and 29 days old.
Widow Approaches Authorities
The widow approached the authorities regarding dues and service benefits after her husband's death. Appellant No. 2 was then 34 years, 10 months and 29 days old.
Police Verification Directed
The respondent No. 4 issued a communication directing appellant No. 2 to undergo police verification for compassionate appointment.
Police Verification Directed
The respondent No. 4 issued a communication directing appellant No. 2 to undergo police verification for compassionate appointment.
Appellant No. 2 Turns 35
Appellant No. 2 completed 35 years of age. Police verification and document verification were completed on 11.02.2021 and 25.02.2021.
Appellant No. 2 Turns 35
Appellant No. 2 completed 35 years of age. Police verification and document verification were completed on 11.02.2021 and 25.02.2021.
Formal Application Acknowledged
The pro forma application submitted on 28.05.2021 was acknowledged by the respondent authorities with 14.06.2021 as the relevant date.
Formal Application Acknowledged
The pro forma application submitted on 28.05.2021 was acknowledged by the respondent authorities with 14.06.2021 as the relevant date.
Claim Rejected on Age Ground
The authorities rejected the claim because appellant No. 2 had crossed 35 years under Clause 9.3.4 of the NCWA; the rejection was communicated to the widow on 20.05.2023.
Claim Rejected on Age Ground
The authorities rejected the claim because appellant No. 2 had crossed 35 years under Clause 9.3.4 of the NCWA; the rejection was communicated to the widow on 20.05.2023.
High Court Dismisses Writ Petition
The High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, dismissed Writ Petition No. 2364 of 2024, holding that age had to be reckoned on the date the claim was considered.
High Court Dismisses Writ Petition
The High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, dismissed Writ Petition No. 2364 of 2024, holding that age had to be reckoned on the date the claim was considered.
Supreme Court Allows the Appeal
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and directed reconsideration of the claim treating appellant No. 2 as eligible in age.
Supreme Court Allows the Appeal
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and directed reconsideration of the claim treating appellant No. 2 as eligible in age.
The Story
Appellant No. 2 is the son of the late Ruspelli Kistaiya, who served as a Dozer Operator with Western Coalfields Limited for nearly 36 years and died in harness on 17.12.2020. On the date of his father's death, appellant No. 2, whose date of birth is 05.02.1986, was aged 34 years, 10 months and 12 days. Appellant No. 1 is the widow and appellant No. 3 is the younger son, who furnished a No-Objection Certificate in favour of appellant No. 2.
On 31.12.2020 the respondent company issued a Standard Operating Procedure / Circular providing the procedure for on-boarding dependents of ex-employees on compassionate grounds. On 03.01.2021 the widow approached the authorities about the payment of dues and other service benefits after her husband's death; appellant No. 2 was then 34 years, 10 months and 29 days old. On 04.01.2021 the respondent No. 4 issued a communication directing appellant No. 2 to undergo police verification for compassionate appointment.
Appellant No. 2 completed 35 years of age on 05.02.2021. Police verification and document verification were completed on 11.02.2021 and 25.02.2021 respectively. He submitted the prescribed pro forma application on 28.05.2021, and the authorities acknowledged receipt of the formal application on 14.06.2021 as the relevant date. On 03.02.2023 the authorities rejected the claim 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 (NCWA), and the rejection was communicated to the widow on 20.05.2023.
The widow filed Writ Petition No. 2364 of 2024 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench. By judgment dated 26.11.2025 the High Court dismissed the petition, holding that age had to be reckoned on the date on which the claim was considered, when appellant No. 2 had already crossed 35 years. The appellants challenged this before the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues
Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer
Arguments
The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court
Petitioner
Vihaan Kumar
Clause 9.3.4 prescribes no cut-off date; age must be reckoned at death or initiation of process
The appellants, through senior counsel Ms. Anitha Shenoy, submitted that Clause 9.3.4 of the NCWA only says the dependent should not be more than 35 years of age and does not specify the relevant date. In the absence of a stipulation, age should be reckoned from the date of death (17.12.2020) or at the latest the date of initiation of the process (04.01.2021), on both of which appellant No. 2 was within the limit.
The 04.01.2021 communication shows the process had begun
The High Court ignored the contemporaneous communication of 04.01.2021 directing police verification, which showed the process had already commenced. The documents furnished on 14.06.2021 only completed procedural formalities.
The employer cannot benefit from its own delay; Article 14 and legitimate expectation
The authorities took nearly two years to reject the claim on 03.02.2023, and the second wave of COVID-19 between March and June 2021 disrupted administration. Eligibility depending on the pace of processing would be arbitrary and violate Article 14. The police verification letter created a legitimate expectation that the claim was accepted for processing. Reliance was placed on Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa, Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries and Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K., and it was urged that compassionate appointment is a welfare measure needing a liberal and purposive construction.
Respondent
State of Haryana
Compassionate appointment is a concession governed by the NCWA, which cannot be relaxed
Counsel for the respondent authorities, Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, argued that the appeal sought only reappreciation of facts and did not warrant interference under Article 136. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a concession governed by the NCWA, which is a complete code prescribing the upper age limit of 35 years that cannot be relaxed on equitable grounds.
The claim became ripe only on a complete application; "initiation" is an artificial concept
The notion of "initiation of the process" has no place in the scheme. The 04.01.2021 communication was a preliminary administrative step for background verification. The claim became ripe only when the prescribed application with documents was completed and acknowledged on 14.06.2021, by which date appellant No. 2 was overage. Accepting the appellants' view would let different applicants rely on different preliminary stages and cause administrative uncertainty.
No delay, discrimination or legitimate expectation shown
No material of deliberate or mala fide inaction was shown, and delay cannot confer eligibility where none exists. The Article 14 plea was misconceived as the scheme was applied uniformly, and legitimate expectation did not arise because no assurance was given that police verification would result in the claim being treated as made within the age limit.
Court's Analysis
How the Court reasoned its decision
The Court began by reiterating that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as of right but is a welfare measure to give immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee, so the scheme should be interpreted in a fair and reasonable manner so that its object is achieved and not defeated. It listed the undisputed facts: the employee died on 17.12.2020 when appellant No. 2 was below 35, the widow approached the authorities on 03.01.2021, the authorities themselves directed police verification on 04.01.2021, appellant No. 2 turned 35 on 05.02.2021, verification was completed by 25.02.2021, the formal application was submitted on 28.05.2021 and acknowledged on 14.06.2021, and the claim was rejected only on 03.02.2023. The Court noted that the second wave of COVID-19 between March and the end of June 2021 disrupted administration so any delay in that period could not be attributed to appellant No. 2. It rejected the argument that the 04.01.2021 communication was a routine exercise: the employer's own SOP provides that antecedent and police verification be obtained before processing a claim, so verification could not have been directed unless a claim had already been initiated, which showed that the process began on 04.01.2021. It also rejected the argument that the claim was complete only on submission of the formal application, since a dependent fully eligible on the date of death who applied within a reasonable period of six months could not be held ineligible merely because procedural formalities took time. Relying on Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa, which held that an eligible applicant cannot suffer for the employer's delay and that applications should be decided preferably within six months, the Court concluded that even if 14.06.2021 was taken as the relevant date, the rejection came after an inordinate delay of about 19 months. The High Court had erred in accepting that the claim came into existence only on 14.06.2021, in ignoring the 04.01.2021 communication, and in finding that the claim was considered within 4 to 5 months, a finding contrary to the record.
compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, but at the same time, it is a welfare measure intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee.
Para 16
Sets the interpretive stance: compassionate appointment is not a right, but the scheme must be read fairly and reasonably to achieve its object.
their own conduct clearly shows that the process had already begun on 04.01.2021.
Para 19
The employer's own police verification direction, required by its SOP before processing a claim, was treated as evidence that the process was initiated while the dependent was within the age limit.
a dependent who was fully eligible on the date of death and who submitted the application within a reasonable period of 6 months cannot be considered ineligible merely because the requisite procedural formalities took time
Para 20
Rejects the employer's contention that eligibility is tested only when a complete formal application is received.
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.
Para 22
States the operative principle that an employer cannot benefit from its own delay.
The Verdict
Relief Granted
Appellant No. 2 is to be treated as eligible in age for compassionate appointment under the NCWA scheme, with his claim to be reconsidered on the remaining conditions and an appointment offered if he is otherwise eligible.
Directions Issued
- The respondent authorities must 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 applicable scheme
- The exercise must be completed within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment
- If appellant No. 2 is otherwise found eligible, appointment must be offered within 4 weeks thereafter
- The Court clarified that the judgment is rendered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case
- The appeal stands disposed of along with pending applications, if any
Key Legal Principles Established
Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, but it is a welfare measure intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee and must be interpreted fairly and reasonably so that its object is achieved.
Where the scheme prescribes a maximum age but not the relevant date for reckoning it, a dependent who was eligible on the date of death and when the process was initiated should not be rejected as overage because of the time taken to process the claim.
An employer's own conduct, such as directing police verification under its SOP, can show that the compassionate appointment process had already begun.
A dependent who applies within a reasonable period of about six months of the death cannot be held ineligible merely because procedural formalities took time.
An eligible applicant cannot suffer on account of delay or inaction attributable to the employer, and applications should be considered expeditiously, preferably within six months of submission of a completed application (Malaya Nanda Sethy).
Delay during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic cannot be attributed to the applicant.
The ruling is rendered on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and does not lay down a universal rule.
Key Takeaways
What different people should know from this case
- If a family member of a deceased employee is within the age limit when the employee dies and the employer starts the process, the employer cannot later reject the claim only because the dependent turned overage while the employer was deciding.
- Keep every communication from the employer, such as a letter asking for police verification, since such documents can prove when the process began.
- Apply as soon as possible after the death; the Court noted that the dependent applied within a reasonable period of about six months.
- Compassionate appointment is not an automatic right, so the dependent must still meet the other conditions of the scheme.
- The Supreme Court said this ruling is based on the peculiar facts of this case, so the outcome in another case may differ.
- If an employer sits on an application for years, the courts may not allow it to take advantage of its own delay.
Legal Framework
Applicable laws and provisions
Constitutional Provisions
Article 14
Constitution of India
“Equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.”
Relevance: The appellants argued that making eligibility depend on the pace of administrative processing is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The Court decided the case on construction of the scheme and the employer's delay.
Article 136
Constitution of India
“Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court.”
Relevance: The respondents argued that the appeal sought reappreciation of facts and did not warrant interference under Article 136; the Court granted leave and allowed the appeal.
Statutory Provisions
Clause 9.3.4
National Coal Wage Agreement-VI
“Provides that a dependent seeking compassionate appointment should not be more than 35 years of age.”
Relevance: The central provision. It does not state the date with reference to which age is to be reckoned; the Court treated the process as having begun on 04.01.2021 when appellant No. 2 was within the limit.
Police and antecedent verification before processing
Standard Operating Procedure / Circular of Western Coalfields Limited dated 31.12.2020
“The SOP provides that antecedent and police verification shall be obtained before processing a claim for compassionate employment.”
Relevance: The Court relied on the SOP to hold that the direction for police verification on 04.01.2021 showed that the claim process had already begun.
Related Cases & Precedents
Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa & Ors.
followed(2024) 15 SCC 766
Held that an otherwise eligible applicant cannot be made to suffer on account of delay or inaction attributable to the authorities and that applications for compassionate appointment should be decided at the earliest, preferably within six months of submission of a completed application.
Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K.
cited2025 INSC 184
Cited by the appellants for the proposition that a dependent who otherwise satisfies the scheme should not be denied consideration solely on age, particularly where the delay is attributable to the employer.
Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries
cited(1993) 1 SCC 71
Cited by the appellants in support of the plea of legitimate expectation.
Watch & Learn
Video explanations in multiple languages
Kannada
Raspelli Bhagya Kishaiya v. General Manager, WCL - Kannada Explanation
Tamil
Raspelli Bhagya Kishaiya v. General Manager, WCL - Tamil Explanation
Telugu
Raspelli Bhagya Kishaiya v. General Manager, WCL - Telugu Explanation
Hindi
Raspelli Bhagya Kishaiya v. General Manager, WCL - Hindi Explanation
English
Raspelli Bhagya Kishaiya v. General Manager, WCL - English Explanation
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore Related Cases
More case summaries on similar legal topics
Omkar Gond v. Union of India
2024 INSC 775
Disability Percentage Cannot Automatically Deny Your Dream of Becoming a Doctor
Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun
2023 INSC 783
The Landmark Ruling on Property Rights of Children from Void Marriages
Supriyo v. Union of India
2023 INSC 920
The Landmark Case That Defined Marriage Equality in India
Deepika Singh v. CAT
2022 INSC 745
Redefining Family: Step-Children and the Right to Maternity Leave
DISCLAIMER: This case summary is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified advocate. JurisOptima is not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.
Facing aSimilar Situation?
Our advocates can help you understand how this judgment applies to your case.