Breaking Supreme Court Legal Update
New Delhi · Friday, 31 July 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2024-11-13 partly_allowed

TINKU vs STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

Bench: 3 — Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Augustine George Masih

In Brief

A son of a deceased police constable sought compassionate appointment more than 11 years after his father's death. The father died in 1997 when the son was seven; the son's name was entered in a Minor's Register in 1998, signalling a reserved post. However, when the son applied after attaining majority in 2008, his claim was rejected as time-barred under the three-year rule established in 1999 instructions. The Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a discretionary exception to aid families in distress, subject to strict statutory compliance. The three-year limit is reasonable and cannot be waived. The Court dismissed the son's appeal but allowed the mother one opportunity to claim ex-gratia compensation instead, as she had not been informed of this alternative option when her son's claim was rejected.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Administrative Law Compassionate Appointment Employees' Rights Statutory Interpretation Government Benefits Estoppel Constitutional Rights

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login