Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 533 (HP)

KAMLESH KUMARI v. STATE OF H. P.

2009-06-02

RAJIV SHARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge.-The husband of the petitioner Shri Bansi Lal was appointed as Volunteer Teacher in Government Primary School, Janjehli, Block Kumarsain, District Shimla on 3.3.1992. He worked as Volunteer Teacher upto 30.1.1998. He met with an accident and died on 30.1.1998. The petitioner submitted an application for seeking employment on compassionate basis. The case was rejected by the State on 27.12.2000. 2. Mr. R.S. Gautam has strenuously argued that the action of the respondents rejecting the claim of the petitioner is against the law. He then contended that the petitioner’s husband shall be deemed to have been regularized after the amendment carried out in Education Code on 11.12.1998. 3. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has supported order dated 27.12.2000. He then argued that the petitioner could not be offered appointment on compassionate ground since as per the policy framed by the State Government, appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be granted to the dependents of Volunteer Teachers. 4. I have heard the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. The petitioner’s husband was working as Volunteer Teacher. He met with an accident and died on 30.1.1998. The claim for compassionate appointment is exception to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It can only be claimed within a reasonable period if there are indigent circumstances on the basis of scheme/policy framed by the employer. In the present case, a bare perusal of impugned Annexure dated 27.12.2000 reveals that the dependents of Volunteer Teachers are not included in the policy/scheme framed by the State Government. The Court cannot issue directions for considering the case of the petitioner to be appointed on compassionate basis in absence of any scheme. Moreover, the petitioner’s husband has died on 30.1.1998. The case was rejected by the State on 27.12.2000. The compassionate appointment is to be offered immediately after the death of the bread earner to mitigate the hardship to the family. The petitioner’s husband has died on 30.1.1998. However, the amendment was carried out in the Education Code on 11.12.1998. In these circumstances, the petitioner’s husband cannot be deemed to have been regularized. 6. The compassionate appointment is to be offered immediately after the death of the bread earner to mitigate the hardship to the family. The petitioner’s husband has died on 30.1.1998. However, the amendment was carried out in the Education Code on 11.12.1998. In these circumstances, the petitioner’s husband cannot be deemed to have been regularized. 6. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held in State Bank of India and another versus Somvir Singh (2007 4 Supreme Court Cases 778 that the claim for compassionate appointment and the right, if any, is traceable only to the scheme, executive instructions, rules etc. framed by the employer in the matter of providing employment on compassionate grounds. Their Lordships have further held that there is no right whatsoever nature to claim compassionate appointment on any ground other than the one, if any, conferred by the employer by way of scheme or instructions as the case may be. Their Lordships have held as under: “Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India guarantees to all its citizens equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Article 16(2) protects citizens against discrimination in respect of any employment or office under the State on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent. It is so well settled and needs no restatement at our ends that appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception carved out to the general rule that recruitment to public services is to be made in a transparent and accountable manner providing opportunity to all eligible persons to compete and participate in the selection process. Such appointments are required to be made on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. Dependants of employees died in harness do not have any special or additional claim to public services other than the one conferred, if any, by the employer. 7. There is no dispute whatsoever that the appellant-Bank is required to consider the request for compassionate appointment only in accordance with the scheme framed by it and no discretion as such left with any of the authorities to make compassionate appointment de hors the scheme. In our considered opinion the claim for compassionate appointment and the right, if any, is traceable only to the scheme, executive instructions, rules etc. framed by the employer in the matter of providing employment on compassionate grounds. In our considered opinion the claim for compassionate appointment and the right, if any, is traceable only to the scheme, executive instructions, rules etc. framed by the employer in the matter of providing employment on compassionate grounds. There is no right of whatsoever nature to claim compassionate appointment on any ground other than the one, if any, conferred by the employer by way of scheme or instructions as the case may be. 8. Consequently, in view of the observations made hereinabove and the definitive law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the case of the petitioner cannot be directed to be considered for compassionate ground in the absence of any scheme providing for compassionate appointment to the wards/dependents of Volunteer Teachers. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.