The petitioner sought compassionate employment following the death of his mother, who was a Junior Clerk. Despite attaining necessary qualifications, his application was rejected due to being filed beyond the stipulated time frame. The court upheld this decision, citing established guidelines and precedents which emphasize prompt applications for compassionate employment.

1. Rule and Hearing

• Rule Made Returnable: Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties at the stage of admission.

2. Petition and Prayer

• Petition Under Article 226: The petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus to direct respondents to provide employment on compassionate grounds.

3. Background and Facts

• Employment and Death of Mother: Petitioner's mother, a Junior Clerk, died in a road accident in 2007. The petitioner, a minor at the time, later applied for employment on compassionate grounds in 2021.

4. Petitioner's Argument

• Scheme's Purpose: Emphasizes the scheme’s aim to address sudden financial crises due to an employee's death. Petitioner acquired necessary qualifications and applied after reaching adulthood.

5. Respondents' Argument

• Delay in Application: Application was submitted after 13 years and did not comply with the two-year limit post-majority as per the guidelines.

6. Undisputed Facts

• Employment History and Application Timeline: Petitioner's mother’s employment details and the timeline of the petitioner's application.

7. Applicable Rules

• Revised Guidelines 2007: Govern the petitioner's request, as they were in force at the time of the mother's death.

8. Limitation for Request

• Rule 10 of 2007 Guidelines: Application must be made within one year of death, extendable to two years by the Chief Justice in suitable cases.

9. Petitioner's Financial Situation

• Family Dependence: Petitioner’s family depended on the mother’s income. Petitioner was a minor at the time of death and later pursued education and qualifications.

10. Supreme Court Precedents

• Urgency in Applications: Citing cases that stress the necessity of timely applications for compassionate employment to address immediate financial crises.

11. Revised Guidelines 2019

• New Limitation Rule: Applications should be made within one year after the eldest child attains majority, extendable by the Chief Justice.

12. Supreme Court Observations

• Timely Consideration: The importance of addressing applications promptly to fulfill the compassionate employment policy's objective.

13. No Vested Right

• Exceptions to General Rule: Compassionate appointment is an exception, not a right, and must adhere to policy terms.

14. Long-Delayed Applications

• Case Law on Delayed Applications: Citing cases where long-delayed applications were rejected as against the policy's objective.

15. Application Timeliness

• Failure to Apply Within Two Years: Petitioner did not apply within two years post-majority as required.

16. Financial Benefits Received

• Details of Received Benefits: Family received substantial financial benefits after the mother's death.

17. Eligibility and Delay

• Application Beyond Two Years: Petitioner's failure to apply within the stipulated period despite eligibility.

18. Validity of Impugned Order

• Rejection Based on Guidelines: Order rejecting the application adheres to the Revised Guidelines.

19. Conclusion

• Dismissal of Petition: Petition dismissed due to non-compliance with application timelines. No order as to costs.