Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 304 (HP)

NARAIN SINGH v. N. H. P. C.

2003-10-13

A.K.GOEL, K.C.SOOD

body2003
JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J. :- Facts as they emerge from the writ petition are that father of the petitioner served respondent No. 1 Corporation as Carpenter for about 22 years. He died while in service on 26.8.1995. 2. Petitioner on his own showing is middle pass and according to him was eligible for being appointed against a Class-IV post respondent No. 1. He further states that his case for compassionate appointment was turned down without any basis and justification in the year 1996 by the respondents. He continued representing between 21.2.1997 to 8.11.1997 to respondent No 1 Corporation for appointing him (the petitioner), on compassionate grounds, Again after a gap of more than four and half years, petitioner alleges that he issued legal notice, but without any consequence, hence this writ petition. 3. In the aforesaid background, petitioner claims himself to be entitled for being appointed no compassionate grounds by the respondents. According to him he and the family members are placed in an indigent situation. Family of the deceased consists of his widow, three daughters and three sons. The family is left in lurch because of its facing financial hardship. According to him, persons similarly situate like petitioner, have been appointed on compassionate grounds by the plaintiffs. As such his non appointment is an act of discrimination on the part of the respondents. 4. At the time of hearing also, learned Counsel for the petitioner persisted with vehemence that the act of his non-appointment by the respondents is arbitrary, and illegal. Since it deprives the petitioner and his family members of their fundamental right to file. As such it is hit by Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. All these pleas have been controverted on behalf of the respondents. According to learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 to 3, appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is in the nature of a concession granted to the family of the deceased employee who dies in harness. This, of course, is subject to the rules, guidelines, policy/instructions, if any, framed by an employer, like respondent No. 1. The sole purpose of providing compassionate appointment after the death of the sole bread winner of the family is, to provide immediate soccour. This, of course, is subject to the rules, guidelines, policy/instructions, if any, framed by an employer, like respondent No. 1. The sole purpose of providing compassionate appointment after the death of the sole bread winner of the family is, to provide immediate soccour. Reason being that after his death family is atleast assured bread and butter and is not made to be| n the street with begging bowl. It is not a source of alternative recruitment by giving go-bye to the ordinary recruitment process as per rules. 6. After having heard learned Counsel for the parties, and having kept in view the position of law on the subject, we feel that pleas urged on behalf of the respondents need to be upheld. Reason being that compassionate appointment is in fact, in the nature of a welfare measure adopted by the State/Central Government, as well as their wholly owned and controlled Corporations etc., like respondent No. 1, being the other authorities within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. While providing compassionate appointment, a person is allowed to get out of the queue in appropriate and deserving cases as per rules/regulation/policy/guidelines/schemes etc. applicable in that behalf. In fact it is in the nature of an exception, to the rule. 7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of-this case, we are satisfied that after the death of the father of the-petitioner in the year 1995, petitioner and other family members of the deceased employee have survived and sustained themselves for almost more than eight years. This is one of the relevant, material as well as important circumstance not to accept claim of the petitioner. As it clearly demonstrates that need of the petitioner and other family members of the deceased, was not so imperative muchless urgent so as to permit him to stake claim for compassionate appointment, after a long gap of more than eight years. This also supports the plea of the respondents that the claim, if any, (that too without conceding and/or in any manner admitting the same) after such a belated stage. This also supports the plea of the respondents that the claim, if any, (that too without conceding and/or in any manner admitting the same) after such a belated stage. For what we have observed hereinabove, we rely on Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar and another, 1996(8) SCC 23; Haryana State Electricity Board and another v. Hakim Singh, 1997(8) SCC 85; State of U.P. and others v. Paras Nath, 1998(2) SCC 412; Director of Education (Secondary) and another v. Pushpendra Kumar and others, 1998(5) SCC 192; S. Mohan v. Government of T.N. and another, 1998(9) SCC 485 and State of Manipur v. Md. Rajaidin, 2003 AIR SCW 4339. . 8. Faced with this situation, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that this writ petition may be ordered to be treated as a representation by the respondents. We say nothing in this behalf. However, in case petitioner submits any such representation before the respondents, it will be for them to deal with the same in an appropriate manner as they may deem it just and proper. In this behalf we may not be understood to have expressed any opinion. 9. No other point is urged. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. -