Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 247 (UTT)

Prema Papney v. General Manager (Personnel)

2018-05-07

ALOK SINGH

body2018
JUDGMENT : Alok Singh, J. 1. Father of petitioner namely Sri Shiv Nandan Papney, was working as Senior Clerk with the respondent Corporation. He died in harness on 29.05.2008. Initially, mother of the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. When nothing was done, petitioner, after attaining the age of majority, moved an application seeking compassionate appointment on 04.04.2011, however, again no action was taken. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner had filed writ petition before this Court being WPSS No. 512 of 2017. This Court vide order dated 30.03.2017 directed the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for compassionate appointment. Respondent no. 2 vide order dated 22.04.2017 rejected the claim of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has again approached this Court. 2. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs. Union of India and Others, 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.” 3. (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.” 3. Recently, Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 251 of 2017, Union of India vs. Sima Banerjee, decided on 10.01.2017 has held that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis, as laid down by this Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and Others, 1994 (4) SCC 138 and in State of U.P. and Others vs. Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi, 2003 (11) SCC 178, therefore, direction to give compassionate appointment, several years after death, was not justified. 4. 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. 5. It is settled position of law that compassionate appointment is not a Rule and cannot be sought, as a matter of right. The compassionate appointment is a concession and exception to public appointment provided under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, therefore, to seek a concession of compassionate appointment, claimant must prove his financial condition and must prove that in the event of non grant of compassionate appointment, claimant would face financial crisis and may die in starvation. 6. Father of the petitioner died on 29.05.2008; application seeking compassionate appointment was moved in the year 2011 and petition was filed in the year 2017; therefore, in my view, after a lapse of about ten years, writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner seems to be unjustified. Therefore, relief sought cannot be granted. 7. Consequently, writ petition fails and is dismissed. CLMA No. 4734 of 2017 also stands disposed of.