Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 823 (UTT)

BHUWAN CHANDRA v. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER

2013-12-24

ALOK SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) For the reasons stated, restoration application no. 813 of 2013 is allowed. Order dated 27.11.2013 passed by this Court is hereby recalled. Writ petition is restored to its original number. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard and is being disposed of today itself. 3. Madhawanand Joshi, father of the petitioner, was working as Security Guard with State Bank of India, Agriculture Development Branch Rudrapur. He died in harness on 12.07.2001. At the time of his death, petitioner was 21-year old. An application was moved by mother of petitioner before the Authorities seeking compassionate appointment for petitioner, which was rejected vide order dated 05.08.2003. Thereafter, correspondences were made with the Bank and vide letter dated 07.02.2005, mother of the petitioner was informed that claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment had already been rejected vide order dated 05.08.2003, which was communicated to her by registered post AD. It was further stated that claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was declined considering the financial condition of the family of petitioner. 4. Present writ petition was preferred on 05.08.2006 challenging the communication dated 07.02.2005 and seeking a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 5. As per dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana reported in 1994 (4) SCC 138 , Bank Headquarters issued one circular dated 28.11.1994 to the effect that compassionate appointment can only be granted to the dependent of deceased employee considering the financial condition of family of deceased employee and in normal circumstances, all the posts fallen vacant should be filled up by way of inviting applications from all eligible candidates. 6. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SAIL Vs. Madhusudan Das reported in 2008 (15) SCC 560 and in the case of V. Sivamurthy Vs. State of A.P. reported in 2008 (13) SCC 730 has held that all the public posts should be filled up, as per mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, so that all the eligible candidates may apply and compete. Compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right. Appointment, on compassionate ground, offered to the dependent of deceased employee, is an exception to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 7. Compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right. Appointment, on compassionate ground, offered to the dependent of deceased employee, is an exception to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 7. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar reported in 2011 (4) SCC 209 has held as under: “20. Thus, while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind: (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 bread winner 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.” 8. As per dictums of Hon’ble Apex Court, it is settled position of law that compassionate appointment is granted to meet the sudden crisis on account of death of breadwinner while in service. While considering the claim for compassionate appointment, financial condition of family of deceased employee must be taken into consideration. The object to grant compassionate appointment is to provide immediate help to the dependents of deceased employee, so that they may not die in starvation. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that on account of death of father of the petitioner in the year 2000, family of the petitioner had received gratuity and other amounts. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that about Rs.1,50,000/- were paid by the Bank, on account of death of petitioner’s father. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that on account of death of father of the petitioner in the year 2000, family of the petitioner had received gratuity and other amounts. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that about Rs.1,50,000/- were paid by the Bank, on account of death of petitioner’s father. In the year 2001, amount of ‘ 1,50,000/- was sufficient to meet out the sudden crisis occurred in the family on account of sudden death of petitioner’s father. 11. Although, claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was declined in the year 2003, however, writ petition was filed in the year 2006, therefore, petition seems to be barred by the principle of laches. Moreover, in the year 2013, after almost 12 years of death of petitioner’s father, it would not be proper for this Court to issue a writ of Mandamus to grant concession to the petitioner by way of granting him compassionate appointment, therefore, considering the principle of equity, at this stage, writ of Mandamus seems to be totally unjustified. Consequently, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.