Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 586 (JHR)

Hahawati Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2021-08-05

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2021
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities to give appointment to this petitioner on compassionate ground who was daughter of late Bateshwar Kapri-deceased employee who died in harness on 06.11.2007. 3. Mr. Ranjan Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards the recommendation made by the Committee-Annexure-2, wherein it has been specifically stated that since the petitioner, who was married daughter, was looking after the deceased employee since long and since the deceased employee was not having any son; as such her case was recommended for appointment to the competent authority. However, the competent authority did not give appointment to this petitioner. He further submits that there was no delay on the part of the petitioner in applying for compassionate appointment; however, the respondents themselves had delayed the matter and finally held that the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment being married daughter of the deceased employee. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case wherein it has been specifically stated that there is no law to appoint a married daughter on compassionate ground and only an unmarried daughter can be appointed on compassionate ground. 5. Mr. Sreenu Garapati, learned counsel for the respondent-State draws attention of this Court towards the circular of the Government dealing with the appointment of a person on compassionate basis in which at column-1(Gha) it has been specifically stated that person who is entitled for compassionate appointment is widow/ son/ unmarried daughter/ widow of deceased son. He further relied upon the judgment passed in the case of N.C. Santhosh V. State of Karnataka reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that compassionate appointment is an exception in general rule and as such the provisions of law is to be adhered in true letter and spirit. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed in the respective affidavits, it appears that name of the petitioner was recommended for compassionate appointment by holding that the deceased employee was not having any son and the petitioner being married daughter was looking after her father since long as such her case was recommended to be considered for compassionate appointment. However, as per notification dated 05.10.1991 which relates to give appointment to the legal heirs on compassionate ground; at paragraph-1 (Gha) it has been specifically stated that the entitled person for compassionate appointment would be widow/son/unmarried daughter/widow of deceased son and the record transpires that the respondent authorities has rejected the claim of the petitioner relying upon this circular. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N.C. Santhosh V. State of Karnataka (supra) has held at paragraph nos. 18 & 19 as under:- “18. In the most recent judgment in State of H.P. v. Shashi Kumar the earlier decisions governing the principles of compassionate appointment were discussed and analysed. Speaking for the Bench, Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, J. reiterated that appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of principles in accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule. The dependants of a deceased government employee are made eligible by virtue of the policy on compassionate appointment and they must fulfil the norms laid down by the State’s policy. 19. Applying the law governing compassionate appointment culled out from the above cited judgments, our opinion on the point at issue is that the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. A dependant of a government employee, in the absence of any vested right accruing on the death of the government employee, can only demand consideration of his/her application. He is, however, disentitled to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable, on the day of death of the government employee.” 8. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing director and Others Vs. Parden Oraon reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 299 has discussed about the object behind granting compassionate appointment. Paragraph 8 and 9 is quoted herein below:- 8. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis which arises due to the death of the sole breadwinner. The mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. Paragraph 8 and 9 is quoted herein below:- 8. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis which arises due to the death of the sole breadwinner. The mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The 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 the job is offered to the eligible member of the family. It was further asseverated in the said judgment that compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period as the consideration of such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in the future. It was further held that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to get over the financial crisis that it faces at the time of the death of sole breadwinner, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or offered after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is over. 9. We are in agreement with the High Court that the reasons given by the employer for denying compassionate appointment to the Respondent's son are not justified. There is no bar in the National Coal Wage Agreement for appointment of the son of an employee who has suffered civil death. In addition, merely because the respondent is working, her son cannot be denied compassionate appointment as per the relevant clauses of the National Coal Wage Agreement. However, the Respondent's husband is missing since 2002. Two sons of the Respondent who are the dependents of her husband as per the records, are also shown as dependents of the Respondent. It cannot be said that there was any financial crisis created immediately after Respondent's husband went missing in view of the employment of the Respondent. Though the reasons given by the employer to deny the relief sought by the Respondent are not sustainable, we are convinced that the Respondent's son cannot be given compassionate appointment at this point of time. The application for compassionate appointment of the son was filed by the Respondent in the year 2013 which is more than 10 years after the Respondent's husband had gone missing. The application for compassionate appointment of the son was filed by the Respondent in the year 2013 which is more than 10 years after the Respondent's husband had gone missing. As the object of compassionate appointment is for providing immediate succor to the family of a deceased employee, the Respondent's son is not entitled for compassionate appointment after the passage of a long period of time since his father has gone missing.” 9. In the instant case the respondents after relying their notification dated 05.10.1991; rejected the claim of this petitioner. Even otherwise, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or offered after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is over. In the instant case the petitioner died in the year 2007 and now in the year 2021 i.e. after lapse of 14 years it cannot be said that the immediate crisis is not over. The mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to get over the financial crisis that it faces at the time of death of the sole bread earner and the same cannot be claimed or offered after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is over. Hence, no relief can be granted to this petitioner. 10. Consequently, the instant writ application stands dismissed.