Saiyed Munafmiya Mohammedmiya vs Taluka Development Officer and Others

K.S. Jhaveri, J.—Rule. Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent-State. With the consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing today.

1.1. We have heard Mr. K.I. Kazi, learned advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned AGP appearing for the respondent.

This intra-court Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 15.11.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 10889 of 2014 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.

The facts in short are that pursuant to the death of the father of the petitioner, the mother of the petitioner had make an application for compassionate appointment which was rejected on the ground of the petitioner being minor. After the petitioner attained the age of majority, the petitioner made several representations but to no avail. Therefore, the petitioner filed writ petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties dismissed the same. Hence the present appeal is preferred by the appellant - original petitioner.

Mr. Kazi, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the financial condition of the petitioner and his family members is not good and therefore this court may consider the case of the appellant for appointment on compassionate grounds. He submitted that though various representations have been filed, they have not been considered yet. He submitted that the appellant at one point of time was offered compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment which may also be considered by this Court.

The learned Single Judge by way of the impugned order has observed as under:

"6. From the background of the facts and papers produced, it is evident that the mother made an application that the case of the petitioner may consider, when he attains majority and now the petitioner is claiming compassionate appointment. It is well accepted that the purpose of compassionate appointment or some ex gratia payments at the relevant time is to provide assistance to the family to meet with the crisis and the underlying purpose is to provide immediate relief to the family to meet with the crisis on account of the death of the breadwinner. However, it does not justify that even if the person like the petitioner who is minor can reserve a claim for the appointment in future, when he becomes major and eligible.

On the contrary the Hon''ble Apex Court in catena of judicial pronouncement including the judgment reported in- MGB Gramin Bank Vs. Chakrawarti Singh, (2013) 9 AD 253 : AIR 2013 SC 3365 : (2013) 139 FLR 469 : (2013) LabIC 3824 : (2013) 10 SCALE 223 : (2013) 4 SCT 541 : (2013) 114 SLJ 328 : (2013) AIRSCW 4801 has deprecated and clearly made observation referring to this very aspect of compassionate appointment.

The reference is made to the underlying purpose of such appointments and has also made the observations referring to the judgment in case of State Bank of India and Another Vs. Raj Kumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661 : (2011) 1 SCC(L&S) 150 . It is required to be considered that when there is no scheme and when there is a consistent observations made by the Hon''ble Apex Court that such appointments should not be made, the present petition cannot be entertained. The Hon''ble Apex Court in a judgment in case of State Bank of India and Another v. Raj Kumar (supra) has observed:

"It is now well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. On the other hand it is an exception to the general rule that recruitment to public services should be on the basis of merit, by an open invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selection process. The dependents of employees, who the in harness, do not have any special claim or right to employment, except by way of the concession that may be extended by the employer under the rules or by a separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. The claim for compassionate appointment is therefore traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme........................................."

We are in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted and findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge. However, in case the appellant is entitled for compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment, the respondent authorities may consider the case of the appellant for compensation in accordance with law and as per the rules. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is dismissed accordingly. No costs.