AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
Heard Shri Vinod Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents at the time of hearing.
This Original Application is filed under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, seeking on the following reliefs:-
8 (i) For quashing the impugned order dated 19.12.2023 passed by respondent-3.
II) to direct the respondent Authority to consider the application of the applicant and given the compassionate appointment to him under dying in harness rules. (iii) to grant any other order or direction as this learned Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case beside costs and expenses of the original Application.
iv) Award the cost to the original application to the applicant.
The brief facts of the case are that father of the applicant, while working as a Driver, Diesel Engine Passenger Train, died in harness on 15.02.2006, leaving behind his widow, six sons and three daughters including the applicant. After the death of the father of the applicant, the elder brother of the applicant submitted an application on 16.08.2007 before the Respondents for compassionate appointment in favour of the applicant, but no heed was paid.
The applicant passed high school in 2019 and intermediate in 2021. In the meantime, the mother of the applicant sent reminder to the respondent-3 on 23.10.2020 and 17.03.2021, but no response was received. On 28.11.2022, the applicant also submitted an application through registered post for considering his case for compassionate appointment in light of the application dated 16.08.2007. In reply, the applicant was directed to supply certain documents vide letter dated 24.01.2023. In compliance of the said letter, the applicant supplied all the available documents on 13.02.2023. The applicant was again directed to submit certain more documents vide letter dated 27.02.2023. The applicant submitted entire documents on 06.03.2023 before the respondent-3. However, the respondent-4 vide order dated 19.12.2023 rejected the application of the applicant for compassionate appointment on the ground that the application for compassionate appointment was given by the application after 16 years of the death of his father. The order dated 19.12.2023 is impugned in this original application.
On the other hand, the Respondents have filed counter affidavit on 29.08.2024, wherein it is stated that late Sohan Lal died in harness on 15.02.2006, leaving behind her widow and nine children and out of which five children born from the wedlock of Sohan Lal and Smt. Bela Devi and four children born from the wedlock of Sohan Lal and Smt. Savitri Devi. After death, all settlement dues of Rs.16,80,178/- was paid to widow Smt. Savitri Devi on 18.10.2017 and she is getting family pension of Rs.9175+DR per months. However, first wife of the deceased employee died during life time of the employee.
As per the record, neither the widow nor any other family member of the deceased employee had submitted any request for compassionate appointment prior to 07.12.2022. The representation submitted in the year 2022 has already been duly considered and decided by the respondents vide the impugned order dated 19.12.2023. No illegality, irregularity or infirmity is discernible in the said order. It is well settled that compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the bereaved family of a deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis arising from his/her untimely demise, and not to provide employment as a matter of right after an undue lapse of time. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the claim for compassionate appointment, having been raised after considerable delay, does not warrant interference. Accordingly, the present Original Application is liable to be dismissed.
Rejoinder Affidavit was also filed by the applicant on 21.11.2025, reiterating the same averments as made in the Original Application.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 19.12.2023 has been passed without properly appreciating the facts of the case. The father of the applicant died in harness on 15.02.2006 and immediately thereafter, the elder brother of the applicant submitted an application dated 16.08.2007 seeking compassionate appointment in favour of the applicant. The applicant was a minor at the relevant time and could not have independently pursued his claim. Subsequently, the mother of the applicant submitted reminders dated 23.10.2020 and 17.03.2021, but no decision was taken by the respondents. Thus, the claim for compassionate appointment was not raised for the first time in the year 2022, as wrongly assumed by the respondents.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that after acquiring the requisite educational qualifications, the applicant submitted an application dated 28.11.2022 requesting consideration of his case in continuation of the earlier application dated 16.08.2007. The respondents themselves considered the claim and required the applicant to furnish documents vide letters dated 24.01.2023 and 27.02.2023, which were duly complied with by the applicant on 13.02.2023 and 06.03.2023. Therefore, the respondents ought to have considered the entire factual background, including the earlier application and subsequent reminders, instead of rejecting the claim merely on the ground of delay. The applicant cannot be made to suffer on account of the respondents’ failure to consider the claim submitted by his family at the relevant time.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the impugned order is mechanical and suffers from non-application of mind, as it does not deal with the application dated 16.08.2007 and the subsequent reminders submitted by the applicant’s mother. The applicant was dependent upon his family and was pursuing his education, and upon attaining the requisite qualification, he approached the respondents for consideration of his claim. The respondents were, therefore, required to consider the claim in its proper factual and legal perspective. Learned counsel accordingly prays that the impugned order dated 19.12.2023 is liable to be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to reconsider the applicant’s case for compassionate appointment.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the applicant approached the respondents for compassionate appointment after an inordinate delay of nearly 16 years from the death of his father on 15.02.2006. It is submitted that compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the bereaved family and cannot be claimed as a matter of right after such a long lapse of time. If the family has been able to sustain itself for a considerable period after the death of the employee, the very object of compassionate appointment stands diluted.
Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the family had already received the terminal benefits and the widow is receiving family pension. The applicant’s claim was duly considered and rejected vide impugned order dated 19.12.2023. There being no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, the Original Application is liable to be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments, so raised by learned counsel for both parties and perused the records.
From perusal of records, it appears that that admittedly, the applicant’s father died in harness on 15.02.2006. Thereafter, as per the applicant, his brother has filed an application on 16.08.2007 for compassionate appointment in favour of the applicant and applicant himself applied in 2022. Subsequently, the claim of the applicant was rejected on the ground that the applicant approached before the respondents after 16 years of death of his father. The alleged application dated 16.08.2007 as filed by the brother of the applicant does not bear any acknowledgement or receiving from the respondents, and therefore, the same cannot be safely relied upon to hold that a valid claim for compassionate appointment was pursued at the relevant time. The applicant approached the respondents only after an inordinate delay. It is also significant that the family has been able to sustain itself for nearly 16 years after the death of the deceased employee. The very object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance to the bereaved family to tide over the sudden financial crisis caused by the death of the breadwinner. Once the family has survived for such a long period, the very basis and purpose of compassionate appointment stand substantially diluted. Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right after an unreasonable and unexplained delay.
Similar issue fell for consideration before the 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, wherein it has been 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 SushmaGosain 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 Singh”) 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 MumtazYunusMulani 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.”
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 source”.
From the perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it is apparent that Scheme of compassionate appointment has to be implemented strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated. Compassionate Appointment, being a concession, cannot be extended after a lapse of many years. The very purpose and object for compassionate appointment is to mitigate the circumstances arising claimed as an absolute right. Compassionate appointment being an exception, cannot be expanded for the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate grounds in a larger manner. Large scale compassionate appointment would result in infringement of the Fundamental Rights of the eligible citizen, who all are aspiring to secure public employment through open competitive process.
Applying the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision to the facts of the case on hand and considering the observations made hereinabove and the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided, the applicant shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground on the death of his father, who died in 2006. After a period of 16 years from the death of the deceased employee, the applicant shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. If such an appointment is made now and/or after a period of 16 years, the same shall be against the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided.
In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court finds that no merit in the instant case and as such, Original Application is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, instant Original Application stands dismissed.
All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.
No order as to costs.