Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 853 (HP)

LOKESH SHARMA v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2009-10-09

R.B.MISRA, RAJIV SHARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner’s father died in harness on 18.12.1985. The petitioner is seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The mother of the petitioner is also serving in the Irrigation and Public Health Department. The case was initially rejected by the State Government on 16.5.2001. The petitioner thereafter again made a representation to the competent authority. 2. We are of the considered view thatthe appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be offered after a lapse of 24 years. In the present case, the petitioner’s father died on 28.12.1985. The case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds was rejected by the competent authority on 16.5.2001 and 6.8.2001. The purpose of granting appointment on compassionate ground is to tide over the crisis immediately after the death of bread earner. The circumstances have changed within a period of 24 years and accordingly the respondents cannot be directed to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds. Moreover, the mother of the petitioner is also employed in Irrigation and Public Health Department. The appointment on compassionate ground is not a vested right. 3. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited versus Anil Badyakar and others, AIR 2009 SC 2534 have held that the compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same cannot be claimed long after death of employee in harness. Their Lordships have held as under: “19. The principles indicated above would give a clear indication that the compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered after a lapse of time and after the crises is over. In the instant case the employee died in harness in the year 1981 and after a long squabble by the dependents of the deceased, they arrived at a settlement that the son-in-law of the second daughter who is unemployed may request for appointment on compassionate grounds. The request so made was accepted by the Personnel Manager of the Company subject to the approval of the Director of the Company. The request so made was accepted by the Personnel Manager of the Company subject to the approval of the Director of the Company. The Director (P), who is the competent authority for post facto approval, keeping in view the object and purpose of providing compassionate appointment has 3 cancelled the provisional appointment on the ground that nearly after 12 years from the date of death of the employee such an appointment could not have been offered to the so-called dependent of the deceased employee. In our considered view, the decision of the employer was in consonance with the Umesh Kumar Nagpal’s case (1994 AIR SCW 2305) and the same should not have been interfered with by the High Court. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.