Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 736 (JHR)

Most Dropati Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2023-06-12

RATNAKER BHENGRA, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2023
ORDER : I.A. No. 2797 of 2020 1. The present Interlocutory Application has been filed for condonation of delay of 62 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. No counter affidavit has been filed opposing the prayer for condonation of delay. 4. Having regard to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. 5. Accordingly, I.A. No. 2797 of 2020 is allowed and the delay in preferring the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No. 160 of 2020 6. The instant intra-court appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 28.11.2019 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 6901 of 2016 by which the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the decision taken by the authority on 05.08.2014 by which the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. 7. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under: The husband of the petitioner No. 1, namely, Khoshi Yadav @ Ramdeo Yadav, has been killed by the extremist on 30.04.1996 without any cause and due to this, the petitioner No. 1, the widow of the deceased and two minor child became helpless. Hence, the petitioner No. 1 gave an application for appointment in Class-IV Government post on compassionate ground to the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih on 02.05.1996. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih has recommended for the appointment of the petitioner No. 1 Most. Dropati Devi, in IVth grade and sent his recommendation to the Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna vide latter dated 11.06.1996. Thereafter, several reminders were sent by the petitioner No. 1 to the respondents but no action regarding appointment on compassionate ground has been taken by the respondents. The petitioner No. 2, Bhola Kumar Yadav, thereafter, has given an application to Chief Secretary, Jharkhand on 22.01.2014 stating that father of the petitioner No. 2 has been killed by the extremist on 30.04.1996, his mother Most. Dropati Devi had given application to the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih for appointment on compassionate ground as per provision of Government but she has not been appointed. Dropati Devi had given application to the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih for appointment on compassionate ground as per provision of Government but she has not been appointed. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner No. 2 has also given petition to Chief Minister, Jharkhand Government as well as to the Prime Minister of India for the appointment on compassionate ground as per Government provision. The Secretary, Home Department, Jharkhand Government called for the detailed report from the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih in the light of the letter of Chief Minister, Jharkhand and the Prime Minister of India for the appointment on compassionate ground to the dependent Bhola Kumar Yadav, petitioner No. 2 son of Late Khoshi Yadav @ Ramdeo Yadav who has been killed by the extremist. In pursuance to the aforesaid, the Land Reform Deputy Collector, Giridih has submitted detailed report to the Additional Collector, Giridih vide letter dated 02.07.2014 after proper enquiry. Thereafter the Additional Collector, Giridih sent a letter to under Secretary, Home Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi vide letter dated 14.07.2014 inclosing the letter of Land Reform Deputy Collector, Giridih alongwith enquiry report and the required documents. The decision was taken by the concerned authority on 05.08.2014 by rejecting the aforesaid claim. 8. It is evident from the factual aspect as referred hereinabove that the father of the writ petitioner No. 2 was killed in the extremist activity on 30.04.1996, in the district of Giridih. The widow of the deceased made an application on 02.05.1996 for appointment in the 4th grade Government post on compassionate ground as well as for monetary compensation. The decision was taken by the concerned authority on 05.08.2014 by rejecting the aforesaid claim. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved, has approached to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 6901 of 2016 but the same having been dismissed, the instant intra-court appeal has been preferred. 9. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/writ petitioners, has submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the vital issue of the beneficial piece of policy decision wherein the provision has been made to provide appointment to the dependent of the civilian, if died in course of extremist attack. 9. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/writ petitioners, has submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the vital issue of the beneficial piece of policy decision wherein the provision has been made to provide appointment to the dependent of the civilian, if died in course of extremist attack. It has been submitted by him that although on the date of death of the husband of the writ petitioner No. 1, i.e. on 30.04.1996, there was no circular to that effect, since the circular to that effect has come on 09.08.2000 but the application so made by the widow of the deceased civilian on 02.05.1996 kept pending till 03.05.2014 and in course of its pendency, the Government since has come out with circular dated 09.08.2000 making therein provision to provide appointment on compassionate ground, therefore, the authority while rejecting the aforesaid claim as on 05.08.2014 ought to have taken into consideration the very intent of the policy decision of the State Government which was floated with effect from 09.08.2000 but, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the aforesaid fact has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from irregularity and, as such, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the appellants has fairly submitted that the point of parity although was not raised before the learned Single Judge but the erstwhile State of Bihar has considered the case of the deceased civilian who has been killed in the extremist attack even in absence of any circular the dependent of the deceased civilians were provided appointment on compassionate ground in case of death occurred sometime in the year 1999 and another death occurred on 18.01.2000. Therefore, submission has been made on behalf of the appellants that the State of Jharkhand, after being created on 15.11.2000, cannot be allowed to take different view which was already taken by erstwhile State of Bihar and considering the aforesaid fact also, the case of the writ petitioner deserves to be considered by providing appointment on compassionate ground. Mr. Atanu Banerjee has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the in the case of Smt. Shashikalabai v. State of Maharashtra and Another, AIR 1999 SC 706 . Mr. Mr. Atanu Banerjee has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the in the case of Smt. Shashikalabai v. State of Maharashtra and Another, AIR 1999 SC 706 . Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel, on the basis of the aforesaid fact, has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires interference. 10. While on the other hand, Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand, has submitted by defending the order passed by the learned Single Judge that admittedly the death was occurred on 30.04.1996 and application was filed on 02.05.1996 by the widow of the civilian who has died in course of extremist attack. However, the case was also recommended by the Deputy Commissioner to the Department on 11.06.1996 but was rejected on 05.08.2014 by taking the ground that on the date when the death took place, there was no circular floated by the State Government to provide appointment in favour of the dependent of the deceased civilian who has been killed in extremist attack. The contention, therefore, has been raised that in absence of any policy decision to provide appointment on compassionate ground, there cannot be any appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of the settled position of law that the appointment on compassion on any ground whatsoever is to be provided if there is any scheme to that effect. Learned counsel appearing for the State, rebutting the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant, that the application was kept pending till 05.08.2014, the day when final decision was taken by rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner and in the meanwhile the Government has come out with a circular dated 09.08.2000, therefore, the said circular having the provision to provide appointment on compassionate ground is to be made applicable even in the case of the appellant, since no decision has been taken by the competent authority but the aforesaid argument cannot be said to be acceptable for the reason that even accepting the fact that the application was lying pending before the authority but the authority while considering the claim of the writ petitioner has taken into consideration the very issue, i.e. non-existence of any policy decision to provide appointment on compassionate ground the day when the death took place, i.e. 30.04.1996. The further submission has been made that the application although remained pending till 05.08.2014 but the writ petitioner has taken no endeavor by approaching the court of law as to why and what is the reason for keeping the aforesaid application pending even knowing the fact that the very purpose to provide appointment on compassionate ground is to provide immediate succor to the dependent of the deceased, rather, the writ petitioner has approached this Court in the year 2016, i.e. after lapse of 19 years from the date of death and in the meanwhile, the very purpose to provide the appointment on compassionate ground itself has been washed away. The further contention has been raised countering the applicability of principle of parity but the aforesaid ground is also not sustainable in view of the fact that the aforesaid ground was not raised before the learned Single Judge. Further, it appears from the record that the appointment was provided in favour of the others, basis upon which parity is being claimed, is after granting relaxation having been approved by the Cabinet of the State of Jharkhand but he emphatically submitted that now it is 27 years from the date of death and, as such, the very purpose of appointment on compassionate ground has already been washed away and taking the aforesaid fact, the learned Single Judge without discussing anything regarding the order dated 05.08.2014, has dismissed the writ petition by considering the fact that such claim is being agitated after lapse of more than 20 years that too without explaining that period and hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires no interference. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 12. The fact which is not in dispute in this case is that Khoshi Yadav @ Ramdeo Yadav, civilian, has succumbed to injury on 30.04.1996 in course of extremist attack. The petitioner No. 1, namely, Most. Dropati Devi, has applied for appointment on compassionate ground along with amount of compensation by making application on 02.05.1996. The Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district has recommended the case of the writ petitioner on 11.06.1996 for appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner No. 1, namely, Most. Dropati Devi, has applied for appointment on compassionate ground along with amount of compensation by making application on 02.05.1996. The Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district has recommended the case of the writ petitioner on 11.06.1996 for appointment on compassionate ground. It appears from the record that the writ petitioner has been paid the amount of compensation in pursuance to the condition available under the scheme, in vogue, as on the date of death, i.e. on 30.04.1996. The application so filed for consideration of the case of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been finally decided by passing order on 05.08.2014 whereby and whereunder the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected by assigning the reason that the death occurred before creation of the State of Jharkhand. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the said order, has filed writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 6901 of 2016 by taking the ground that merely because the death has occurred before bifurcation of the State, i.e. prior to 15.11.2000, that cannot be a ground to negate the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. The question has been put to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as to whether on the date of death, i.e. 30.04.1996, was there any circular to provide appointment on compassionate ground in favour of the dependent of deceased civilian? Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has fairly submitted that there was no circular to that effect. However, he submitted that the circular has been floated by the State of Bihar on 09.08.2000 and since the application so made by the petitioner No. 1 on 02.05.1996 since was pending as on 09.08.2000, as final decision was taken on 05.08.2014, therefore, the authority ought to have taken into consideration the very provision to provide appointment on compassionate ground as contained in the circular dated 09.08.2000. But, we are not in agreement with the aforesaid submission for the reason that the appellant since has invoked the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, as such, he has to make out a case of having the legal vested right for consideration of his case. But, we are not in agreement with the aforesaid submission for the reason that the appellant since has invoked the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, as such, he has to make out a case of having the legal vested right for consideration of his case. The law is well settled that the court of equity, the court having the jurisdiction to exercise the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is only supposed to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction if the litigant is having the legal vested right and if there is infringement of fundamental right, as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2013) 4 SCC 465 wherein at paragraph 9 it has been observed which reads hereunder as: “9. ……. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can, of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. In fact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same.” 13. The admitted position herein is that the death occurred on 30.04.1996 and application was made by petitioner No. 1 on 02.05.1996 with two fold prayers, first for making payment of amount of compensation and second, for appointment on compassionate ground. The admitted position herein is that the death occurred on 30.04.1996 and application was made by petitioner No. 1 on 02.05.1996 with two fold prayers, first for making payment of amount of compensation and second, for appointment on compassionate ground. The amount of compensation, in terms of circular which was in vogue as on 30.04.1996, was paid in favour of the petitioner No. 1, the widow of the deceased civilian, but according to learned counsel for the appellants, no decision has been taken by the authority so far as it relates to the claim of appointment on compassionate ground as was agitated by the petitioner No. 1. But the fact remains that there cannot be any direction by the court of law that too by the High Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to provide appointment on compassionate ground in absence of any scheme to that effect. The aforesaid version of the appellant is also self-contradictory as the application said to be pending since the petitioner No. 2, the son of petitioner No. 1 and the deceased civilian, has made a fresh application on 22.01.2014 which itself suggest that the claim which was agitated on behalf of the petitioner No. 1 has been treated by the appellant itself to have no force and the reason behind it is that as on the date of death, i.e. on 30.04.1996, or when the application was made, there was no provision to provide appointment on compassionate ground. It appears from the material available on record that the petitioner No. 1, after having got the benefit of compensation in the light of the available circular and after the petitioner No. 2 became major, a fresh application was filed on 22.01.2014 for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, the question which requires consideration in this case is that once the application filed on behalf of the widow, the petitioner No. 1, under which positive decision was taken based upon the policy decision in vogue, at the time of death of the civilian, i.e. on 30.04.1996, the amount of compensation was paid in favour of the petitioner No. 1. Further, it appears from the material available on record that admittedly as on 30.04.1996 the petitioner No. 2 was minor. Further, it appears from the material available on record that admittedly as on 30.04.1996 the petitioner No. 2 was minor. However, the petitioner No. 2 after having become major, made fresh application on 22.01.2014 based upon the circular issued by the State of Bihar on 09.08.2000. 14. The question, thus, arises that once the claim of the writ petitioner No. 1 has already been decided by making payment of compensation, is it available to other dependent, the son of the deceased civilian, to again ventilate the grievance for providing appointment on compassionate ground? 15. The answer of this Court will be absolutely in negative, reason being that once the application so made on the basis of the circular prevalent during the relevant time, i.e. at the time of death of the civilian if decision has been taken, the aforesaid consideration will be said to be closed for all practical purposes. Herein, as per circular in vogue, the compensation has been made as such the grievance will be said to be closed as per scheme. The fresh application so filed in the instant case by the petitioner No. 2, after having become major on 22.01.2014, that cannot be allowed to be considered by reopening the already settled matter. Further, the application so made on 22.01.2014 by the son of the civilian based upon the circular dated 09.08.2000 is also not required to be considered by taking into consideration the fact that as on the date of death of the father of the petitioner No. 2 on 30.04.1996, there was no circular to provide appointment on compassionate ground. 16. The learned Single Judge has appreciated the aforesaid fact and by taking into consideration the fact that the application was made by the petitioner No. 2 on 22.01.2014, i.e. after lapse of 18 years, and, as such, has come to the conclusive finding that after lapse of 18 years there cannot be direction by the court of law for providing appointment on compassionate ground. Such finding of the learned Single Judge, according to our considered view, is just and proper on the basis of the settled position of law as has been settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director and Others vs. Parden Oraon, 2021 SCC Online SC 299 at paragraph 8, which is required to be referred herein reads hereunder as: “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.” Further, in the case of Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and Others vs. Anusree K.B. 2022 SCC Online SC 133, the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt the similar issue and has observed as under paragraph 19 and 20 which are quoted hereunder as: “19. 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. 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. 20. Under the circumstances, both, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have committed a serious error in directing the appellants to reconsider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable.” 17. It is settled proposition of law that the appointment on compassionate ground is to be provided in order to provide immediate succor to the bereaved family. Herein, although it is not the case of the appellant that the civilian who has died was holding the public post, rather, the claim is being made on the basis of the circular dated 09.08.2000 wherein the provision has been made by the erstwhile State of Bihar that in case of death of civilian in course of extremist attack, one of the dependent of the civilian will be provided appointment. But the purpose of bringing out the aforesaid circular is to provide appointment by way of compassion so that the family may be able to survive, meaning thereby, the very spirit of providing appointment on compassion is of paramount consideration also while floating the circular dated 09.08.2000. The law since is well settled that the appointment on compassionate ground on any reason whatsoever is in the teeth of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and, as such, the very intent and object is to be followed while providing appointment on compassionate ground. 18. The law since is well settled that the appointment on compassionate ground on any reason whatsoever is in the teeth of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and, as such, the very intent and object is to be followed while providing appointment on compassionate ground. 18. So far as the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants placing reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Smt. Shashikalabai vs. State of Maharashtra and Another (Supra) as appended as Annexure-B to the paper book, this Court, after having gone through the facts of the aforesaid judgment, is of the view that the direction passed in the aforesaid case is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, reason being that the aforesaid case pertains to enhancement of amount of compensation which was enhanced during the pendency of the consideration of the application for disbursement of the amount of compensation and before taking decision, the quantum of compensation has been enhanced and in that view of the matter, the order has been passed that the claimant is entitled for the enhanced amount of compensation. There is no dispute about the fact the amount of compensation, if decided to be paid in favour of any person who is entitled to get it, no right of the other person is being taken away and in that view of the matter, if the quantum of compensation has been enhanced during the pendency of the decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that the claimant is entitled for the enhanced amount of compensation. But, here in the instant case, the question of appointment on compassionate ground is there and since the appointment on compassionate ground is in the teeth of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and is to be given by snatching the right of the candidates who are to be provided appointment by way of calling upon them through the direct recruitment process and hence, providing appointment on compassionate ground since is adverse to the interest of the candidate who is to come through the direct recruitment process for the purpose of filling up the post and, as such, the scheme which was available at the time of death of the civilian is to be held applicable. 19. 19. The argument has been advanced that the application so filed on behalf of the widow of the deceased civilian since was pending and in the meanwhile, the circular has been issued on 09.08.2000 with an insertion of a condition to provide appointment on compassionate ground to the dependent of the deceased civilian, and hence, the writ petitioner is also entitled for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground in view of the subsequent circular in the same way as was directed to be given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Shashikalabai vs. State of Maharashtra and Another (Supra). But we have already referred hereinabove that providing enhanced compensation since is not adverse to the interest of any other candidate, rather, it is the individual benefit having no adverse impact upon the others but the said principle is not applicable so far as the appointment to be provided on compassionate ground is concerned since if the appointment will be provided in absence to the condition to that effect in the circular which was available at the time of death of the deceased civilian, the same will be held to be illegal. The said decision will be illegal for the reason that there cannot be any direction by the court exercising the power of extra ordinary jurisdiction if there is no provision under the scheme so as to consider the case of the concerned by treating the same to be the legal vested right in pursuance to the condition available in the scheme. But, herein, the scheme is silent to provide appointment on compassionate ground, rather, the scheme provides for compensation and accordingly, compensation has been paid and in that view of the matter, according to our considered view, there cannot be any direction for providing appointment on compassionate ground. 20. But, herein, the scheme is silent to provide appointment on compassionate ground, rather, the scheme provides for compensation and accordingly, compensation has been paid and in that view of the matter, according to our considered view, there cannot be any direction for providing appointment on compassionate ground. 20. So far as the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that two other dependents of the civilians who had died in the year 1999 and sometime in the year 2000 have been provided with appointment on compassionate ground but herein the fact is quite different since the petitioner No. 1, who happens to be the widow of the deceased civilian, made application on 02.05.1996 for making payment of compensation and also to provide appointment on compassionate ground but the concerned respondent authority, after taking into consideration the circular in vogue at the time of deceased civilian, i.e. 30.04.1996, has taken decision to make payment of compensation and no decision was taken for appointment on compassionate ground. The respondent concerned, according to our considered view, is correct in not taking any decision in absence of any provision to provide appointment on compassionate ground under the scheme which was in vogue at the time of death of the civilian. The fact of the instant case is that when the application filed by the petitioner No. 1, i.e. widow of the deceased civilian, has been set at rest after making payment of amount of compensation, a fresh application has been made by the petitioner No. 2 who happens to be the son of the deceased civilian on 22.01.2014 and the aforesaid application was rejected. 21. The fact which has been discussed by us hereinabove, at the risk of repetition, is being reiterated herein that once the application filed on behalf of the petitioner No. 1, the widow of the deceased civilian, has been set at rest after making payment of compensation in the light of the scheme in vogue at the time of death of the civilian and at that time the petitioner No. 2 was minor and when he became major a fresh application was filed on 22.01.2014, i.e. after lapse of 18 years. 22. 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in State of Himachal Pradesh and Another vs. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653 had an occasion to consider the object and intent of appointment on compassionate ground and considering the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Govind Prakash Verma vs. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 , at paragraph 21 and 26 it has been held as under: “21. The decision in Govind Prakash Verma vs. 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 vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 . The principles which have been laid down in Umesh Kumar have been subsequently followed in a consistent line of precedents in this Court. These principles are encapsulated in the following extract: “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. 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 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 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. 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 vs. 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 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 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.” 23. The reference is also required to be made herein of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court that there cannot be direction for appointment on compassionate ground if there is no such condition in the scheme, as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Ashish Awasthi, (2022) 2 SCC 157 at paragraph 6 which is required to be referred herein which reads hereunder as: “6. In Indian Bank vs. Promila, (2020) 2 SCC 729 , it is observed and held that claim for compassionate appointment must be decided only on the basis of relevant scheme prevalent on date of demise of the employee and subsequent scheme cannot be looked into. Similar view has been taken by this Court in State of M.P. vs. Amit Shrivas, (2020) 10 SCC 496 . It is required to be noted that in Amit Shrivas the very scheme applicable in the present case was under consideration and it was held that the scheme prevalent on the date of death of the deceased employee is only to be considered. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order [Ashish Awasthi vs. State of M.P. 2018 SCC Online MP 1824] passed by the Division Bench is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside.” 24. The argument has also been advanced that the scheme to provide appointment on compassionate ground since is beneficial piece of legislation and, as such, it is to be construed generously. This argument is not acceptable to this Court for the reason that the beneficial piece of legislation can be taken to be generously unless such condition is provided under the scheme. In absence of any such condition in the scheme, there cannot be any direction for appointment on compassionate ground in the garb of beneficial piece of legislation since the competent authority has not come out with a decision to provide appointment on compassionate ground. In absence of any such condition in the scheme, there cannot be any direction for appointment on compassionate ground in the garb of beneficial piece of legislation since the competent authority has not come out with a decision to provide appointment on compassionate ground. Here, the application since has been made by the petitioner No. 2 on 22.01.2014 which is after lapse of 18 years and now it is 27 years from the date of death of the father. Further, the writ petitioner since has approached the court after lapse of 20 years that too after settlement of the claim in favour of the petitioner No. 1, the widow of the civilian, who has been paid the amount of compensation on the basis of the rules available at that time, if the learned Single Judge has refused to pass positive direction in favour of the writ petitioners on the basis of the aforesaid fact, which according to our considered view, cannot be said to suffer from an error. 25. This Court, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove is of the considered view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires no interference. 26. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.