Amardeep Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors.

Sandeep Moudgil, J

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of the impugned order dated 09.01.2025 (Annexure P-12) vide which the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected merely on the ground that a period of 5 years has passed since the death of the father of the petitioner ignoring the fact that the case was under consideration with the respondents since 2017 and earlier order of rejection was set aside by this Court. A further prayer has been sought for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment.

The facts, to the extent necessary for adjudication of the present petition, are that the father of the petitioner, namely late Sh. Shinderpal Singh, was serving in the Revenue Department, Government of Punjab. He had initially served as Naib Tehsildar and, as per the record, was promoted as Tehsildar in the year 2014. He died in harness on 01.05.2017. The petitioner thereafter submitted an application dated 06.09.2017 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, initially to the post of Patwari. His case was forwarded by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division to the Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot vide communication dated 10.10.2017. The petitioner acquired the qualification of Bachelor of Arts and thereafter submitted another representation dated 16.12.2019. At one stage, he sought appointment as Naib Tehsildar. The respondents have pointed out that under the Punjab Government Compassionate Appointment Scheme, 2002, appointment on compassionate grounds is contemplated against Group 'C' or Group 'D' posts against the available direct recruitment quota and that the post of Naib Tehsildar did not fall within the permissible category.

3.. Earlier, the petitioner's claim had been rejected vide communication dated 19.12.2022. The petitioner challenged the same by filing CWP No.29667 of 2024. During the hearing of the said writ petition, learned State counsel stated that the order dated 19.12.2022 would be treated as withdrawn and that a fresh reasoned order would be passed. Accordingly, vide order dated 18.11.2024, the said writ petition was disposed of in terms of the statement made on behalf of the State.

Pursuant thereto, respondent No.1 reconsidered the matter and passed the speaking order dated 09.01.2025, once again declining the claim of the petitioner. It is this order which has been assailed in the present proceedings.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the impugned order is arbitrary and contrary to the very object of the Compassionate Appointment Scheme, 2002. It is submitted that the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment promptly after the death of his father on 01.05.2017 and, therefore, the delay which subsequently occurred in deciding his claim cannot be attributed to him. It is further submitted that the petitioner had initially submitted his application on 06.09.2017 and that his case remained under consideration with different authorities for several years. Reports were repeatedly sought from the concerned offices and the petitioner supplied the documents demanded from him. Therefore, according to learned counsel, the respondents cannot first keep the matter pending and thereafter use the passage of time as a ground for rejecting the claim.

It is contended that the report dated 22.09.2022 specifically noticed that the petitioner had no property in his own name and no independent source of income. The said report also recorded that the petitioner's mother had ousted/disinherited him from the family estate on 25.01.2022. According to learned counsel, once the petitioner had been excluded from the property and was not receiving any part of his mother's salary or the family pension, the income available to his mother could not legitimately be treated as income available to the petitioner.

It is argued that the respondents wrongly observed that no newspaper publication evidencing the petitioner's ouster had been furnished. It is the case of the petitioner that the relevant newspaper cutting/report dated 04.03.2022 had in fact been supplied and was annexed with the writ petition as (Annexure P-13).

Another limb of the petitioner's submission is that he possessed the requisite educational qualification and was eligible for consideration for a Group 'C' post such as Patwari. It is submitted that the object of the policy would stand defeated if a candidate who had applied immediately after the death of the employee were denied consideration merely because the authorities themselves took several years to conclude the exercise.

Learned counsel has thus prayed that the speaking order dated 09.01.2025 be quashed and the respondents be directed either to appoint the petitioner on a suitable post on compassionate grounds or to reconsider his claim strictly in accordance with the Scheme of 2002, uninfluenced by the delay occasioned at the end of the authorities.

Per contra, learned State counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has supported the impugned speaking order and submits that compassionate appointment is not a mode of regular public employment nor does the death of a Government employee create a vested or hereditary right in favour of one of his legal heirs to obtain a Government post.

Learned State counsel submits that the object of compassionate appointment is narrowly confined to providing immediate financial assistance to a family which, on account of the sudden death of its breadwinner, is left in such penurious circumstances that it is unable to sustain itself. The relevant policy itself requires the competent authority to examine whether the family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance to overcome financial destitution.

It is argued that the petitioner's family never satisfied this foundational requirement. At the time of death of the petitioner's father in May 2017, the petitioner's mother, Smt. Manjit Kaur, was herself gainfully employed in the Government Health Department. The reports obtained during consideration of the petitioner's case show that she was drawing salary of about ₹65,000/- to ₹66,955/- per month and was also in receipt of family pension. The family had additionally received substantial service/pensionary benefits consequent upon the death of the employee.

Learned State counsel further points out that the mother of the petitioner continued in service for several years after the death of her husband and retired only on 31.03.2024 from the office of Civil Surgeon, Bathinda, as Mass Media and Information Officer. Even after retirement, she has not been left without a source of livelihood, as she is receiving basic pension of ₹35,950/- per month, excluding allowances, meaning thereby, there was a regular and substantial source of livelihood available to the family continuously from the date of death of the employee and even thereafter.

Learned State counsel also refers to the assets standing in the name of the family and the retiral/pensionary benefits amounting to ₹73,91,085/-. It is submitted that these circumstances have to be considered cumulatively and not by examining whether a particular asset happens to stand in the petitioner's individual name.

As regards the plea that the petitioner was disinherited or ousted by his mother, learned State counsel submits that the alleged ouster occurred only on 25.01.2022, nearly five years after the death of the employee. It cannot retrospectively establish that the family was in financial destitution immediately following the death in 2017. The respondents also question the material furnished in support of such ouster and rely upon the inconsistent stands taken by the petitioner and his mother. Learned State counsel has pointed that in the earlier affidavits dated 06.08.2019 and 22.03.2021, the mother did not disclose her employment status, whereas the third affidavit dated 27.08.2021 disclosed that she was working in the Health Department.

Learned State counsel lastly submits that more than eight years have elapsed since the death of the employee and the circumstances themselves demonstrate that the family successfully overcame the period following the death without the aid of compassionate appointment. Reliance has also been placed upon Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others, (1994) 4 SCC 138, to argue that compassionate appointment is intended to meet an immediate financial crisis and is not an alternative source of public employment.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record.

The controversy has to be examined keeping in view the basic object underlying appointment on compassionate grounds. Appointment to public service ordinarily has to conform to the constitutional requirement of equality of opportunity. Compassionate appointment constitutes a narrowly carved out exception, justified only by the immediate necessity of rescuing the family of a deceased employee from financial destitution occasioned by the sudden loss of its breadwinner. It is, therefore, neither a vested right nor a benefit which follows merely upon proof that the applicant is the son or daughter of a Government employee who died in harness.

The 2002 Scheme itself embodies this principle. Under the eligibility provision, the family is required to be indigent and deserving of immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution, and the competent authority is required to assess whether the family of the deceased employee is unable to meet the financial crisis resulting from his death. The policy, therefore, makes the financial condition of the family, rather than unemployment of an individual dependent, the central consideration.

Examined on the aforesaid touchstone, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the ultimate decision of the competent authority.

The most material circumstance is the employment and income of the petitioner's mother. The petitioner's father died on 01.05.2017. At that point of time, Smt. Manjit Kaur, widow of the deceased and mother of the petitioner, was herself in Government employment. The record subsequently showed her monthly salary to be ₹66,955/-. Another official report described her salary as approximately ₹65,000/- per month, in addition to family pension of approximately ₹40,000/- per month.

This is not a case, therefore, where the death of the Government employee suddenly left the family without any earning member or any regular source of livelihood. The surviving spouse was already in Government employment. She continued to remain in service for almost seven years after the death of her husband and retired only on 31.03.2024. Even upon retirement, the source of livelihood did not disappear; the material placed on record shows that she became entitled to and is receiving a basic pension of ₹35,950/- per month, excluding allowances.

The position is further reinforced by the financial benefits received by the family on account of the deceased employee. The record refers to payment of ₹73,91,085/- towards pensionary/service benefits including GPF, leave encashment, DCRG, pay arrears and interest on delayed payments. There was also immovable property/residential property and certain land standing in the name of the petitioner's mother. These circumstances may not, individually, establish affluence; however, viewed cumulatively with the regular salary of the petitioner's mother and family pension, they clearly negate the existence of the kind of immediate financial destitution for which compassionate appointment is intended.

Much emphasis has been laid by learned counsel for the petitioner upon the fact that no property stands in the petitioner's own name and that the report dated 22.09.2022 described his personal financial condition as miserable. The argument, though attractive at first blush, proceeds on an incorrect understanding of the object of the Scheme.

The subsequent assertion that the petitioner was ousted or disinherited by his mother on 25.01.2022 does not alter the position. The death occurred on 01.05.2017. The alleged ouster is stated to have taken place nearly five years thereafter. A subsequent inter se arrangement, estrangement or dispute between members of the family cannot retrospectively convert a family which had a regular earning member at the relevant time into a family that was left in immediate penury by the death of the employee.

To hold otherwise would detach compassionate appointment from its true object. The financial distress contemplated by the Scheme must have a proximate nexus with the death of the employee. A financial difficulty arising years later from an adult dependent's separation from an earning parent, or from a subsequent family dispute concerning property, cannot ordinarily be treated as the sudden financial crisis caused by the death of the Government employee.

Even if the petitioner's assertion regarding his ouster from the estate is accepted for the sake of argument, the same would establish, at best, his individual financial difficulty at a subsequent point in time. It would not erase the undisputed circumstance that when his father died, his mother was gainfully employed and continued in Government service until 31.03.2024. The object of compassionate appointment cannot be enlarged to provide Government employment whenever a dependent subsequently becomes financially independent of, or estranged from, another earning member of the family.

The petitioner's reliance upon the delay on the part of the authorities also does not carry his case to the desired conclusion. There is substance in the submission that an applicant ought not to be prejudiced solely because the administration took considerable time to decide a claim which had been instituted within time. Indeed, where the only ground for rejection is administrative delay attributable to the State, such reasoning would require careful judicial scrutiny.

The present case, however, does not rest merely upon delay. The financial circumstances available on record independently demonstrate absence of the foundational requirement of indigence. The family had an earning member in the form of the petitioner's mother; she was receiving substantial salary and family pension; the family received sizeable pensionary/service benefits; and there were immovable assets. The subsequent retirement of the mother in 2024 does not advance the petitioner's case, because she has thereafter been receiving pension. Thus, whether the matter is viewed from the date of death, during the intervening period, or at the stage of the impugned decision, the record discloses a continuing source of livelihood.

There is yet another aspect. The passage of more than eight years since the death of the employee is relevant not merely as a technical limitation but as a circumstance bearing upon the very object of compassionate appointment. The fact that the family has sustained itself for such a substantial period, aided by the salary of the surviving spouse, family pension and other service benefits, further demonstrates that this is not a case where immediate appointment is required to rescue the family from a sudden financial crisis.

The Court is conscious that the petitioner had made his initial application soon after his father's death and, therefore, the lapse of time cannot entirely be placed at his door. For that reason, this Court does not sustain the rejection merely because a particular number of years have elapsed. The decisive consideration is that the material on record does not establish the financial destitution contemplated by the Scheme either at the time of death or thereafter. The passage of time only reinforces that conclusion.

The petitioner's educational qualification likewise does not create an enforceable right. Eligibility for a post and financial eligibility for compassionate appointment are distinct requirements. A candidate may possess every educational qualification prescribed for a Group 'C' post and yet not be entitled to compassionate appointment if the family does not satisfy the threshold requirement of indigence and immediate financial necessity.

It is also pertinent that under the 2002 Scheme the permissible appointments are to Group 'C' and Group 'D' posts. The petitioner's representation dated 16.12.2019 seeking appointment as Naib Tehsildar, a post outside the category contemplated by the Scheme as asserted by the State, could not confer any right upon him. His subsequent request for consideration as Patwari has been examined by the authorities, but even for such a post the fundamental requirement of financial indigence remains applicable.

The policy instructions, as amended, also contemplate the situation where another earning member exists in the family. Such cases are not necessarily barred in every conceivable circumstance, but the competent authority is required to examine the number of dependents, assets and liabilities of the family, income of the earning member, his or her liabilities and whether such earning member is in a position to support the family. Thus, existence of an earning member requires a meaningful assessment of the family's overall financial condition.

Applying that test here, the conclusion cannot be said to be arbitrary. The mother was not merely nominally employed. She was drawing a substantial and regular Government salary, apart from family pension. There is no material showing such overwhelming liabilities of the family as would neutralise these regular sources of income. On the contrary, the speaking order records that despite calling for an asset-liability report, no debt, bank loan or comparable liability of the family was brought forth.

The Court also cannot lose sight of the nature of the jurisdiction being exercised. In judicial review, this Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the assessment of financial circumstances made by the competent authority. Interference would be justified if relevant material had been ignored, irrelevant material had formed the basis of the decision, or the conclusion were manifestly arbitrary or contrary to the governing policy. No such infirmity of a nature warranting interference is made out in the present case.

The plea of violation of natural justice also does not persuade this Court to set aside the order. The petitioner's claim was processed on the basis of representations, affidavits and reports furnished/obtained over a considerable period. More importantly, no prejudice capable of altering the result is demonstrated, as the essential financial facts concerning the mother's employment, salary, family pension and subsequent pension are borne out from the official record. A remand for another round of consideration, in the peculiar facts of the present case, would therefore serve no useful purpose.

Compassionate appointment cannot be converted into a reservation of a Government post for a dependent to be claimed at any point of time. Its justification exists only so long as the exceptional circumstance which permits departure from the normal constitutional mode of recruitment is shown to exist. Once the material establishes that the family possessed a continuing and substantial source of livelihood, the very foundation for invoking the exception is absent.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the fact that the petitioner may personally be unemployed or may not possess property in his own name cannot be viewed in isolation. The Court has to consider the financial position of the family of the deceased Government employee in the context of the object of compassionate appointment.

No patent illegality, perversity or violation of the governing policy is, therefore, found in the ultimate decision declining compassionate appointment. The impugned speaking order dated 09.01.2025 (Annexure P-12) does not call for interference in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.