Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2615 (RAJ)

Santosh v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-10-17

INDERJEET SINGH

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:- "It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to admit and allow this writ petition, call for and examine entire record of the case and- a) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dated 5.11.2018 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may kindly be directed to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner as Class IV employee with all consequential benefits from the date of furnishing application form in the prescribed format. b) Any other order or direction, this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of the petitioner." 2. Brief facts of the case are that father of the petitioner died during service, while he was working as helper with the respondents No.2 & 3 (hereinafter to be referred as "Nigam") and all the retiral benefits were paid to the wife of deceased employee by the Nigam. For the first time, the petitioner who is married daughter of deceased employee filed an application on compassionate ground in the year 2018 for appointing on the post of Class-IV. The Nigam vide communication dated 05.11.2018, rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner who is married daughter is not entitled for the compassionate appointment as per the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996, adopted by the Nigam. 3. The Nigam vide communication dated 05.11.2018, rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner who is married daughter is not entitled for the compassionate appointment as per the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996, adopted by the Nigam. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being married daughter is also entitled for appointment on compassionate ground in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Priyanka Shrimali v. State of Rajasthan (Civil Reference No.01/2022 & Other connected matters) decided on 13.09.2022, which reads as under:- "As a consequence, it is directed that on account of striking down of the word 'unmarried' from the definition - (i) the same shall not effect any case, wherein compassionate appointment has already been granted under the provisions as they stood before this order; (ii) the same by itself would not provide a cause of action to any applicant and would apply to cases which are either pending before the competent authority and/or to the cases where litigation is pending on the date of this order only; (iii) the provisions and other requirements of the definition regarding the applicant being wholly dependent on the deceased government servant at the time of his/her death would be scrupulously applied; (iv) all the parameters as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court for grant of compassionate appointment, shall also be scrupulously followed and that (v) all other provisions of the Rules except the inclusion of the 'married daughter' in the definition of 'dependent', shall have full application. The matters be now placed before the Division Bench for appropriate orders." 4. Counsel further submits that the at the time of death of father of petitioner, she was a minor, therefore, the application for seeking appointment on compassionate ground could not be filed at that point of time. 5. Counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition and submitted that father of the petitioner died in the year 1999 and the petitioner applied for appointment on the compassionate ground in the year 2018 after a delay of 19 years. 5. Counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition and submitted that father of the petitioner died in the year 1999 and the petitioner applied for appointment on the compassionate ground in the year 2018 after a delay of 19 years. Counsel further submits that the respondents have duly examined the application submitted by the petitioner and rightly rejected her claim, as the petitioner has filed the application after a delay of 19 years and the compassionate appointment cannot be given to any person as a back door entry and the compassionate appointment can only be given to meet out the immediate financial hardship to the family. 6. Counsel further submits that even wife of the deceased employee never filed any application for compassionate appointment. 7. In support of his contention, counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. & Ors. v. Anusre K.B. (Civil Appeal No.6958/2022) decided on 30.09.2022, where in paras No.7, 8, 9 & 9.1 held as under:- "7. While considering the issue involved in the present appeal, the law laid down by this Court on compassionate ground on the death of the deceased employee are required to be referred to and considered. In the recent decision, this Court in the case of Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and Anr. v. V. Somyashree, 2021 SCC Online SC 704, had occasion to consider the principle governing the grant of appointment on compassionate ground. After referring to the decision of this Court in N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617 , this Court has summarised the principle governing the grant of appointment on compassionate ground as under:- (i) that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule; (ii) that no aspirant has a right to compassionate appointment; (iii) the appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of the principle in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; (iv) appointment on compassionate ground can be made only on fulfilling the norms laid down by the State's policy and/or satisfaction of the eligibility criteria as per the policy; (v) the norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. 8. 8. As per the law laid down by this Court in catena of decisions on the appointment on compassionate ground, for all the government vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the said norms. The compassionate ground is a concession and not a right. 8.1 In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. v. Shashi Kumar reported in (2019) 3 SCC 653 , this Court had an occasion to consider the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground and considered the decision of this Court in the case of Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, reported in (2005) 10 SCC 289 , in paras 21 and 26, it is observed and held as under:- "21. The decision in Govind Prakash Verma [Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 , has been considered subsequently in several decisions. But, before we advert to those decisions, it is necessary to note that the nature of compassionate appointment had been considered by this Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 ]. The principles which have been laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 ] have been subsequently followed in a consistent line of precedents in this Court. These principles are encapsulated in the following extract: (Umesh Kumar Nagpal case [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 ], SCC pp. 139-40, para 2) "2. ... As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. 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 nonmanual 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 and 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. 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." 26. The judgment of a Bench of two Judges in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra [ (2008) 11 SCC 384 ] has adopted the principle that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment, but a means to enable the family of the deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis. The financial position of the family would need to be evaluated on the basis of the provisions contained in the scheme. The decision in Govind Prakash Verma [Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 590] has been duly considered, but the Court observed that it did not appear that the earlier binding precedents of this Court have been taken note of in that case." 9. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. 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 such family a post much less a 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 such family a post much less a post held by the deceased. 9.1 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and considering the observations made hereinabove and the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided, the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her father, who died in the year 1995. After a period of 24 years from the death of the deceased employee, the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. If such an appointment is made now and/or after a period of 14/24 years, the same shall be against the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided." Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed; for the reasons, firstly, the petitioner has submitted the application for appointment on compassionate ground after a delay of 19 years, secondly, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. & Ors. (supra), no case is made out for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the present writ petition stands dismissed.