AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
By way of the instant writ application, the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground on the ground of the death of his father on 4.11.2010.
The case of the petitioner in brief is that his father was working on a Grade IV post as Sweeper in R.D. & D.J. College, Munger when he died in harness on 4.11.2010.
It is the case of the petitioner that he applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 4.12.2012 and his application was also forwarded through the proper channel to the Vice Chancellor of the Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University. The petitioner received a communication from the respondent University as contained in letter dated 9.12.2017 to appear with the requisite certificates, however, inspite of the petitioner appearing in the University, no steps were taken by the respondents and as such the instant writ application for the reliefs as stated herein above.
It may be mentioned here that the Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University was split and the Munger University was formed on 18.3.2018.
The application of the petitioner is opposed by learned counsel appearing for the Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University as also the Munger University under which the college in question where the father of the petitioner was working now falls.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University that the Compassionate Appointment Committee conducted its meeting on several dates in the year 2017 and made several recommendations for appointment of eligible candidates for appointment on compassionate ground. The name of the petitioner does not figure therein only for the reason that inspite of several reminders, the petitioner neither appeared before the authorities of the college nor the Compassionate Committee, nor did he produce the relevant documents as asked for by the respondents. It is further submitted that the college in question i.e., the R.D. & D.J. College, now falls under the Munger University, Munger and thus the T.M. Bhagalpur University has no role to play so far as the application of the petitioner is now concerned.
The application of the petitioner is opposed by learned counsel appearing for the Munger University. Referring to the counter affidavit filed, it is submitted that the father of the petitioner passed away on 4.11.2010 and strangely, the salary statement of his father submitted by the petitioner has been signed on 8.9.2011. It is further submitted that so far as the Munger University is concerned, the same came to be established eight years after the death of the petitioner's father on 18.3.2018. No application has been filed by the petitioner before the Munger University for his appointment on compassionate ground. Even on the ground of delay and laches, the application is fit to be rejected.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the contents of the petition, the facts not in dispute are that the father of the petitioner died on 4.11.2010.
Even accepting that the application was filed by the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground on 4.12.2012, inspite of the letter/communication of the T.M. Bhagalpur University written on 9.12.2017 to the petitioner to produce the relevant documents, it transpires that the petitioner sat over the matter and did not furnish the documents as mentioned therein. Even the present writ application came to be filed only in November, 2025.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, what transpires is that the petitioner seeks appointment on compassionate ground by filing the instant writ application 15 years after the death of his father.
It may be observed here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank & Ors. vs. Promila & Anr.; (2020) 2 SCC 729 has held that the compassionate appointment is not an alternative to the normal course of appointment and there is no inherent right to seek compassionate appointment. In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana & Ors; (1994) 4 SCC 138, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment is granted to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis and is not a mode to provide employment.
So far as the present case is concerned, the very fact that the family of the deceased employee, i.e. the petitioner herein, could manage to maintain itself for a period of 15 years without even filing the writ application, the Court is of the opinion that the very object of grant of compassionate appointment which is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis in which the family is left as a result of the death of the sole bread earner of the family would be defeated in case the instant application is allowed.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has not made out a case for grant of any relief of compassionate appointment by filing the instant writ application.
The application is dismissed.