Dev Kumar Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard Mr. Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents.

This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 12.07.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 3361 of 2021, whereby, the order dated 07.12.2019 was challenged and a prayer was made to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment.

The father of the petitioner died on 17.05.2000 while working under the State of Madhya Pradesh, leaving behind his wife, three daughters and one son.

The petitioner was aged about four years at the time of death of his father. The petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment in the year 2015 after attaining majority in the year 2014, which was rejected by an order dated 17.02.2016 on the ground that the case of the petitioner cannot be considered as death of his father occurred before creation of the State of Chhattisgarh while he was an employee of the Government of Madhya Pradesh and the same was communicated by the Under Secretary to the Government of Chhattisgarh, Forest Department to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest by letter dated 05.02.2016. The decision was communicated by the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Administration) to the Chief Forest Conservator by letter dated 17.08.2015 with copy to the petitioner. It is not very clear as to whether the petitioner or the Chief Forest Conservator received the said communication, as the case of the petitioner was again forwarded by the Chief Conservator Forest for grant of compassionate appointment. By letter dated 07.12.2019, it was communicated that the case of the petitioner could not be considered as his case was already rejected.

Mr. Mishra has submitted that, subsequently, decision was taken by the State Government of Chhattisgarh that it will consider the claims for compassionate appointment in respect of the employees who had died three years prior to formation of the State of Chhattisgarh and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment.

The learned Single Judge observed as follows:

“3. So far as the law of compassionate appointment is concerned, the same has by now well settled by a catena of decisions from the Supreme Court up till this High Court whereby it has time and again been held that compassionate appointment is not to be treated as another source of recruitment. Compassionate appointment is providing only as an immediate succor to the family of the deceased enabling them to tide away the financial stringency that a family may face on account of the death of the sole bread earner in the family. The very purpose for grant of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the immediate hardship that the family faces on the death of the deceased employee. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that compassionate appointment is not to be treated as a source of recruitment but merely an exception to the general rule of recruitment in the compelling circumstances that a family faces on account of death of an employee in harness.

In the instant case, perusal of the facts would show that the petitioner was not the only child of the deceased employee. The deceased was survived by his wife and two children elder to the petitioner who had definitely attained majority much earlier than the petitioner or may be even major at that point of time. Under the circumstances, in the event if the family were facing acute financial stringency, it would they who should have approached the Court promptly for a claim for compassionate appointment. Having not done so, the claim of the petitioner cannot be kept alive till he attains the age of majority. Under the circumstances, if the respondents have rejected the claim though on the ground that the death of the deceased took place prior to the establishment of the State of Chhattisgarh, this Court even otherwise does not find any merits in the case of the petitioner.”

In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 2 observed as follows:

“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 interest 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." (emphasis added).”

When the family of the petitioner has sustained for long 15 years from the death of his father before application for compassionate appointment was made, we are inclined to take the same view as taken by the learned Single Judge.

Accordingly, we find no merit in this appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed.