Raspelli Bhagya Kishaiya & Ors. v. General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited & Ors. | 2026 INSC 841 | 12 August 2026
What the case was about
This case turned on the rules for “compassionate appointment”—a scheme that offers employment to a dependent family member when a government or public-sector employee dies while still in service. The central dispute was how to calculate a dependent’s age when the governing agreement sets an upper limit of 35 years but does not specify the exact cut-off date. The Supreme Court had to decide whether a candidate’s age should be measured on the day the employer finally considers the application, or on the day the process actually begins. It also had to determine whether an employer can reject an otherwise eligible claim because the applicant crossed the age limit while the file was languishing in administrative channels.
The key facts
Late Ruspelli Kistaiya served as a Dozer Operator with Western Coalfields Limited for nearly 36 years before he died in harness on 17 December 2020 (para 3). His son, appellant No. 2, was born on 5 February 1986, which meant he was 34 years, 10 months and 12 days old on the day his father died (para 3).
The company issued a Standard Operating Procedure for compassionate appointments on 31 December 2020 (para 4). On 4 January 2021, the authorities directed the son to undergo police verification (para 5). He turned 35 on 5 February 2021. The police and document verifications were completed on 11 February and 25 February 2021, respectively (para 6). He subsequently submitted the prescribed pro forma application on 28 May 2021, and the employer acknowledged receipt on 14 June 2021 (para 7).
Nearly two years later, on 3 February 2023, the company rejected his claim, stating that he had crossed the 35-year age limit prescribed under Clause 9.3.4 of the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) (para 8). The family approached the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), which dismissed the petition on 26 November 2025, holding that the age had to be reckoned as on the date the claim was considered (para 2, 10). The family then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The questions before the Court
The Supreme Court framed the appeal around three linked questions (para 15):
- In the absence of an express cut-off date in Clause 9.3.4 of the NCWA, should age be determined from the date the employer eventually considers the application, or from the date the right to seek compassionate appointment accrued and the process was set in motion?
- Can an employer reject an otherwise eligible claim simply because the dependent crossed the age limit while the employer was slowly processing the application?
- Does rejecting the claim under these circumstances violate Article 14 of the Constitution?
What the Court decided and why
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s judgment (para 25).
The Court held that the process for compassionate appointment had already commenced on 4 January 2021, when the employer itself directed the son to undergo police verification (para 19). It reasoned that the employer’s own Standard Operating Procedure required antecedent and police verification to be obtained before processing a claim for compassionate employment (para 19). “If no claim had been made, there was no reason for the respondent-authorities to direct appellant No. 2 to undergo police verification,” the Court observed (para 19). On that date, the son was admittedly within the prescribed age limit.
The Court next rejected the employer’s argument that the claim only became “complete” upon submission of the formal application on 14 June 2021 (para 20). It noted that the dependent was fully eligible on the date of death and had submitted the formal application within a reasonable period. Interpreting the scheme to make eligibility hinge on the pace of administrative processing would defeat the very purpose of the welfare measure (para 20).
Relying on its recent decision in Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa (para 21), the Court emphasized that an otherwise eligible applicant cannot be made to suffer because of delay attributable to the employer. In this case, even if 14 June 2021 were taken as the relevant date, the employer took about 19 months to reject the claim (para 22). “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,” the Court held (para 22).
The Court also took note of the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused unprecedented disruption to normal administrative functioning between March and June 2021, and observed that the son could not be blamed for delays arising from circumstances beyond his control (para 18). Consequently, the High Court erred in affirming the rejection and in concluding that there was no delay on the employer’s part (para 23, 24). “The respondent-authorities were not justified in rejecting the claim of appellant No. 2 on the ground that he had crossed the age limit by the time the application was considered,” the Court concluded (para 24).
Why it matters
The judgment carries significant weight for two reasons. First, it clarifies that when a compassionate appointment scheme prescribes an age ceiling but omits a specific cut-off date, eligibility must be reckoned from the moment the process is initiated by the employer’s own conduct—not from the distant date when the file finally reaches a decision-maker (para 19, 22). This prevents authorities from shifting the goalposts after the process has already begun.
Second, the ruling reinforces the foundational principle that compassionate appointment is a beneficial welfare measure intended to provide immediate financial succour to a family devastated by the death of a breadwinner (para 16). Authorities cannot use their own administrative lethargy, backlogs, or procedural bottlenecks to strip a dependent of eligibility that existed when the process started (para 22). The Court underscored that applications for compassionate appointment should be decided expeditiously, preferably within six months, so that the very purpose of the scheme is not frustrated by tardy processing (para 21).
As a result of the ruling, Western Coalfields Limited must now reconsider the son’s claim on its merits within eight weeks, treating him as eligible in age and examining only the remaining conditions under the applicable scheme (para 26). If he satisfies those conditions, an appointment must be offered within four weeks thereafter (para 26). For families across the public sector, the decision offers a vital safeguard against bureaucratic injustice, ensuring that red tape does not become a reason to deny relief to those already coping with loss.