Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
1. By means of this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs :
I. That this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the orders dated 15.05.2008 passed by respondent No.3.
II. That this Hon’ble Court/Hon’ble Tribunal may issue order or direction that this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in
the circumstances of the case and to allow this application along with costâ€.
2. The brief facts of the case are that applicant’s father while working as Driver met an accident and due to which sustained serious injuries and
ultimately died on 05.02.1998. Applicant applied for appointment under compassionate ground. As per direction of the respondents, applicant submitted
his educational documents. After going through the documents, applicant was called for interview and test for the post of Mazdoor. By letter dated
25.08.2001, applicant was informed that his case has been placed in the waiting list at serial No. 81. But respondents vide letter dated 20.07.2002
rejected the application of the applicant for compassionate appointment. Being aggrieved, applicant filed OA No. 647 of 2003 before this Tribunal,
which was disposed of vide order dated 05.11.2007 with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the applicant. In pursuance of
direction of the Tribunal, applicant again submitted his application, respondents rejected the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment vide
order dated 15.05.2008 which is under challenge in this OA.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
4. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant’s father was serving in the respondents’ department, who died on
5.2.1998 in an accident during service period. FIR was also lodged in this respect at the concerned police station. Information was also given to the
respondents department. Applicant applied for job under Dying in Harness Rules and representation to this respect was also moved to the concerned
authority. Concerned authority demanded the required documents, which were submitted by the applicant. Respondents considered the claim of the
applicant but vide order dated 20.07.2002 rejected it observing that appointment could not be made due to non-availability of vacancies and also on the
ground of less score. Applicant filed OA No. 647 of 2003 before this Tribunal which was decided on 05.11.2007 with a direction to the respondents to
decide the matter afresh. Order passed on 20.7.2002 was set aside. It is further argued that applicant thereafter passed the impugned order dated
15.5.2008 whereby again reproducing the facts disclosed in the order dated 20.07.2002 rejected the candidature of the applicant. Referring to the
order dated 15.05.2008 as well as 20.07.2002, learned counsel for the applicant argued that respondents/competent authority have not applied judicial
mind nor considered the candidature of the applicant as per relevant extant Rules, they simply reproduced the facts disclosed in the order dated
20.07.2002 in the impugned order. Thus, argued that OA be allowed and impugned order be set aside and respondents be directed to reconsider the
candidature of the applicant in the light of relevant rules.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that applicant’s father died in the year 1998. More than 25 years have elapsed and it shall not be
presumed that till today financial crisis is subsisted. It is also argued that applicant’s candidature was considered twice firstly on dated 20.7.2002
and secondly on dated 15.5.2008. Since applicant could not be considered due to the facts disclosed in both the orders, candidature of the applicant
was rejected. Thus, there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order. OA be devoid of merit and may be dismissed on merits
6. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record.
7. This is second round of litigation before this Tribunal. The facts as disclosed by the applicant in his OA have not been disputed by the respondents.
Admittedly, the applicant has no vested right to be appointed on compassionate ground. The compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter
of right and it depends upon the destitute condition of the family of the deceased employee. In the instant case, the employee died in the year 1998 and
we are in the year 2024 and near about 26 years have elapsed, the applicant as well as the family of the deceased employee are maintaining
themselves and as such, the purpose for grant of compassionate appointment frustrates after lapse of such a long period.
8. As per dictums of Hon'ble Apex Court, it is settled position of law that compassionate appointment is granted to meet the sudden crisis on account
of death of breadwinner while in service. While considering the claim for compassionate appointment, financial condition of family of deceased
employee must be taken into consideration. The object to grant compassionate appointment is to provide immediate help to the dependents of
deceased employee, so that they may not die in starvation.
9. It is also settled preposition of law that compassionate appointment is not a Rule and cannot be sought, as a matter of right. The compassionate
appointment is a concession and exception to public appointment provided under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, therefore, to seek a
concession of compassionate appointment, claimant must prove his financial condition and must prove that in the event of non-grant of compassionate
appointment, claimant would face financial crisis.
10. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari and Ors. Etc. etc. in Civil Appeal No. 8842-8855 of
2022 decided on 3.3.2023 in paras 7.1 and 7.2 has held as under:-
“7.1. It may be apposite to refer to the following decisions of this Court, on the rationale behind a policy or scheme for compassionate
appointment and the considerations that ought to guide determination of claims for compassionate appointment.
i. In Sushma Gosain vs. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 468, this Court observed that in all claims for appointment on compassionate
grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. That the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate grounds is to mitigate
the hardship caused due to the death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to
redeem the family in distress.
ii. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138, this Court observed that the object of granting compassionate
employment is to enable the family of a deceased government employee to tide over the sudden crisis by providing gainful employment to
one of the dependants of the deceased who is eligible for such employment. That mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his
family to such source of livelihood; the Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of
the deceased and it is only if it is satisfied that, but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is
to be offered to the eligible member of the family, provided a scheme or rules provide for the same. This Court further clarified in the said
case that compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time after the death of a government servant. That
the object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner,
compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered after lapse of considerable amount of time and after the crisis is overcome.
iii. In Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Hakim Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 85, (“Hakim Singhâ€) this Court placed much emphasis on the
need for immediacy in the manner in which claims for compassionate appointment are made by the dependants and decided by the
concerned authority. This Court cautioned that it should not be forgotten that the object of compassionate appointment is to give succour to
the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis that has befallen the dependants on account of the untimely demise of its sole earning
member. Therefore, this Court held that it would not be justified in directing appointment for the claimants therein on compassionate
grounds, fourteen years after the death of the government employee. That such a direction would amount to treating a claim for
compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession.
iv. This Court in State of Haryana vs. Ankur Gupta, AIR 2003 SC 3797 held that in order for a claim for compassionate appointment to be
considered reasonable and permissible, it must be shown that a sudden crisis occurred in the family of the deceased as a result of death of
an employee who had served the State and died while in service. It was further observed that appointment on compassionate grounds cannot
be claimed as a matter of right and cannot be made available to all types of posts irrespective of the nature of service rendered by the
deceased employee.
v. There is a consistent line of authority of this Court on the principle that appointment on compassionate grounds is given only for meeting
the immediate unexpected hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner vide Jagdish Prasad vs. State of
Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 301. When an appointment is made on compassionate grounds, it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seeks
to achieve, the idea 19 being not to provide for endless compassion, vide I.G. (Karmik) vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, (2007) 6 SCC 162. In
the same vein is the decision of this Court in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384, wherein it was declared
that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment, but a means to enable the family of the deceased to get over a
sudden financial crisis.
vi. In State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, AIR 2006 SC 2743, the facts before this Court were that the government
employee (father of the applicant therein) died in March, 1987. The 6 application was made by the applicant after four and half years in
September, 1991 which was rejected in March, 1996. The writ petition was filed in June, 1999 which was dismissed by the learned Single
Judge in July, 2000. When the Division Bench decided the matter, more than fifteen years had passed from the date of death of the father
of the applicant. This Court remarked that the said facts were relevant and material as they would demonstrate that the family survived in
spite of death of the employee. Therefore, this Court held that granting compassionate appointment after a lapse of a considerable amount
of time after the death of the government employee, would not be in furtherance of the object of a scheme for compassionate appointment.
vii. In Shashi Kumar, this Court speaking through Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. (as His Lordship then was) observed that compassionate
appointment is an exception to the general rule that appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of
principles which accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. That the basis of the policy is that it recognizes that a family of a
deceased employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the untimely death of the employee while in service. That it is the
immediacy of the need which furnishes the basis for the State to allow the benefit of compassionate appointment. The pertinent observations
of this Court have been extracted as under:
“41. Insofar as the individual facts pertaining to the Respondent are concerned, it has emerged from the record that the Writ Petition
before the High Court was instituted on 11 May 2015. The application for compassionate appointment was submitted on 8 May 2007. On 15
January 2008 the Additional Secretary had required that the amount realized by way of pension be included in the income statement of the
family. The Respondent waited thereafter for a period in excess of seven years to move a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution. In
Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra), this Court has emphasized that the basis of a scheme of compassionate appointment lies in the need of
providing immediate assistance to the family of the deceased employee. This sense of immediacy is evidently lost by the 7 delay on the part
of the dependant in seeking compassionate appointment.â€
7.2. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles emerge:
i. That a provision for compassionate appointment makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment to a post by
following a particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said
procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions and must be resorted to only in order to achieve the stated objectives,
i.e., to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.
ii. Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or
the public sector undertaking is to see that the dependants of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the
family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.
iii. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. Compassionate employment cannot be
claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over. iv. That compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to
redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years.
v. In determining as to whether the family is in financial crisis, all relevant aspects must be borne in mind including the income of 22 the
family, its liabilities, the terminal benefits if any, received by the family, the age, dependency and marital status of its members, together
with the income from any other sourceâ€.
11. The controversy involved in the present case pertains to compassionate appointment which arose in the year 1998 when deceased employee died
and a period of approximately 25 years has been elapsed since then. Therefore, it is clear that the applicant and his family will not be in a state of
financial destitution. Facts and evidence available on record are not sufficient to presume that penury condition of the applicant still subsists after lapse
of more than 25 years. Thus it would not be just and proper to direct the respondents to reconsider the claim of the applicant for compassionate
appointment after a gap of more than 26 years. It is also evident from the impugned order that the case of the applicant could not be considered on
compassionate appointment due to inadequate vacancy and it was not within the relative merit against the ceiling of 5% quota meant for direct
recruitment. It is also relevant to mention here that the case of the applicant has been considered twice. Thus, keeping in view the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra), the grounds taken in the
present O.A. lacks merit.
12. In view of the observations mentioned above, I find that the OA lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No order as
to costs. All associated MAs are disposed of.