Arjun Sen vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Sanjay Yadav, J.—Heard. Grievance raised by the petitioner is against non-grant of appointment on compassionate ground which petitioner claims in lieu of death of his father.

Petitioner''s father was employed as Veterinary Attendant in Veterinary Hospital, Gajari, Post Office Tala Distt. Sidhi in the Department of Veterinary Services. He died while on service on 23.4.1996. The petitioner, who was minor and after attaining majority on 1.6.1999, applied for compassionate appointment on 9.11.1999 and 9.10.2001. The request was turned down on 14.6.2002 on the ground that the petitioner''s father was employed in the Work-charged and Contingency Paid Establishment and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground.

Vide present petition, the petitioner, while seeking quashment of the order-dated 14.6.2002, also seeks direction to the respondent to consider his claim for compassionate appointment in lieu of death of his father.

Admittedly, the petitioner''s father was engaged as Veterinary Attendant in the Work-charged and Contingency Paid Establishment. No policy of the State Government has been commended at as was in vogue in the year 1996 when the petitioner''s father expired as would entitle the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.

Moreover, petitioner''s father having expired on 23.4.1996 and the request for appointment on compassionate ground having turned down in the year 2002, it is too late for the petitioner to seek quashment of the order passed by respondent no. 3 on 14.6.2002 and to seek direction for appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of Circular-dated 10.6.1994.

Trite it is that the appointment on compassionate ground in lieu of death of a government servant is not a right but a mean to retrieve the family from immediate financial crisis which they may get into on the death of a bread earner, thus the appointment on compassionate ground is an exception rather than rule of law.

The above view finds support in recent pronouncement of law by the Supreme Court in respect of the aspect of compassionate appointment.

In this context, it has been observed in National Institute of Technology and Others Vs. Niraj Kumar Singh,

All public appointments must be in consonance with Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Exceptions carved out therefore are the cases where appointments are to be given to the widow or the dependent children of the employee who died in harness. Such an exception is carved out with a view to see that the family of the deceased employee who has died in harness does not become a destitute. No appointment, therefore, on compassionate ground can be granted to a person other than those for whose benefit the exception has been carved out. Other family members of the deceased employee would not derive any benefit thereunder.

In State Bank of India and Another Vs. Somvir Singh, it is observed-

There is no dispute whatsoever that the appellant-Bank is required to consider the request for compassionate appointment only in accordance with the scheme framed by it and no discretion as such left with any of the authorities to make compassionate appointment de hors the scheme. In our considered opinion the claim for compassionate appointment and the right, if any, is traceable only to the scheme, executive instructions, rules etc. framed by the employer in the matter of providing employment on compassionate grounds. There is no right of whatsoever nature to claim compassionate appointment on any ground other than the one, if any, conferred by the employer by way of scheme or instructions as the case may be. "

In State of Gujarat and Others Vs. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari and Another, it is held:

It is a settled legal proposition that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is not simply another method of recruitment. A claim to be appointed on such a ground, has to be considered in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions governing the subject, taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. Such a category of employment itself, is an exception to the constitutional provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16, which provide that there can be no discrimination in public employment. The object of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased to overcome the sudden financial crisis it finds itself facing, and not to confer any status upon it. (Vide: Union of India & Ors. v. Shashank Goswami).

Recently, it is observed by their Lordships in Ashok Kumar Vs. District Magistrate, Basti and Another, that:

10... It is time and again, stated that a party who has slept over his right since is not entitled to the discretionary relief of the High Court...

In the case at hand, the petitioner having failed to substantiate that the family suffered the financial crisis. And that the family has survived all these years, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of appointment on compassionate ground.

Having thus considered, this Court does not find any substance in the claim. In view whereof, petition fails and is dismissed as no relief can be granted. No costs.