Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 384 (JHR)

Janardan Lal v. Vice Chancellor

2013-03-15

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has sought direction for appointment in Grade-III instead of Grade-IV in terms of the Government order dated 21.8.1995. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner who was working as a peon in Ranchi University, died in harness in the year 1997. The petitioner was given appointment on compassionate ground on 20th February, 1998. The petitioner joined the post of peon which is in Grade-IV. It is the case of the petitioner that one Mahesh Yadav and one Shri Indradeo Ram had been given appointment on the post of Grade-III however, the petitioner was offered appointment on the post of peon and as his family was in distress and he was in need of employment, he joined the post in Grade-IV. In terms of Government Letter dated 21st August, 1995, the petitioner sought appointment in Grade-III w.e.f. his initial date of appointment and arrears of difference of pay and other benefits also. A counter-affidavit has been filed denying the claim of the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was entitled for appointment on a post in Grade-III in terms of letter dated 21st August, 1995 of the Government. Other persons have also been offered appointment in Grade-III however, the petitioner has been illegally denied the benefit for being appointed on a post in Grade-III. The learned counsel for the respondents has supported the stand taken in the counter-affidavit. He has pointed out that it is not true that appointment can be made only in Grade-III, rather in terms of letter dated 21st August, 1995, an offer can be made for appointment on a post in Grade-IV also. It has further been clarified that the case of the petitioner is not identical to Indradeo Ram and Mahesh Yadav. 4.In the case of “Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and others”, reported in (1994)4 SCC 138 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court while emphasising that the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of course, has observed: 2. “.....The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. “.....The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, 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. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable land valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved viz. relief against destitution . No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.” 5. In the case of “Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. Union of India and others.”, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 209 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held, 15. “Now, it is well settled that compassionate employment is given solely on humanitarian grounds with the sole object to provide immediate relief to the employee's family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and cannot be claimed as a mater of right. “Now, it is well settled that compassionate employment is given solely on humanitarian grounds with the sole object to provide immediate relief to the employee's family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and cannot be claimed as a mater of right. Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our constitutional scheme, and ordinarily public employment must be strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit, in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No other mode of appointment is permissible. Nevertheless, the concept of compassionate appointment has been recognized as an exception to the general rule, carved out in the interest of justice, in certain exigencies, by way of policy of an employer, which partakes the character of the service rules. That being so, it needs little emphasis that the scheme or the policy, as the case may be, is binding both on the employer and the employee. Being an exception , the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve.” 6.The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the said case indicated the factors which have to be kept in mind while considering the claim for employment on compassionate ground as under: 20. “(i)Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. (ii)An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time. (iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/incapacitated employee's family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be. (iv) Compassionate employment is permissible only to one of the dependants of the deceased/ incapacitated employee viz. Parents, spouse, son or daughter and not to all relatives, and such appointments should be only to the lowest category that is class III and IV posts.” 7. (iv) Compassionate employment is permissible only to one of the dependants of the deceased/ incapacitated employee viz. Parents, spouse, son or daughter and not to all relatives, and such appointments should be only to the lowest category that is class III and IV posts.” 7. From the record of the case, it is clear that the petitioner after the death of his father who was working as a peon, accepted the offer to the post of peon which is in Grade-IV, and accordingly joined the said post on 20th February, 1998. After lapse of more than four years, he raised a claim that he should have been appointed on a post in Grade-III. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right rather, it is offered to the family in distress as a measure of support to the family. Moreover, a person cannot raise a claim for appointment in a particular Grade. The offer for appointment on compassionate ground can vary in different situations. The claim of the petitioner has rightly not been considered by the respondents. 8. In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.